Following on a wish for a respectful but serious discussion of Darwinism’s contribution to racism (which is fundamental to the theory), it was intriguing to hear, re Jared (Guns, Germs, and Steel) Diamond,
In his twenties he started to visit Papua New Guinea and used the material gathered to write academic papers in the field of ornithology. That led him into yet more – seemingly unlikely – areas of intellectual inquiry such as environmental geography, followed by physical and cultural anthropology (or the study of human evolution and culture). “My study of New Guinea was initially motivated by birds but you cannot do anything there without dealing with local people,” he explains. “And once you have spent time dealing with local people, you realise that humans are similar all around the world in some respects – but different in others.”
And then hear a commenter’s response:
Criticisms of Diamond’s position is nothing to do with anthropological turf war. He believes tribal peoples are much more violent than ‘us’ and that they welcome state intervention which supposedly leads them to the peaceful uplands of civilisation. …
Who, exactly are the “us”? Sandy Hook?
No, Jared’s approach is a late effect of Darwinism: The belief that we have somehow evolved to be less violent.
What could possibly justify such a delusion? Not history, but Darwin in the schools. Now taught by superheroes, apparently.