Darwinians have gone to such lengths to defend Darwin when, it is becoming clear, everybody who lived before Political Correctness was a racist. One interesting thing about the linked story about Jung (1875-1961) is the pushback it is getting from the combox.
But not to get ahead of ourselves,
Today, Jungian or analytical psychology retains an active community. But a recently published Open Letter from a number of prominent Jungians points to troubles within the fold.
The letter acknowledges that Jung’s writings contained racism, and apologizes for the failure of Jungians to confront this fact earlier.
The Open Letter refers in particular to a 1988 paper by Farhad Dalal, which was bluntly titled Jung: A Racist. In this piece, Dalal pointed to several instances of racism in Jung’s writings, aimed mostly at Africans, but also Indians and Arabs.Neuroskeptic, “The Racism of Carl Jung” at Discover Magazine
Well, if Jung was a racist, then Darwin was a racist too. Too bad those things can’t just be admitted so we can move on. We can’t deal with the consequences of things we can’t admit.
And the biggest consequence, which Neuroskeptic helpfully identifies, is “the question of whether Jung’s racism was an integral part of his psychological theory.” Indeed. With Darwin, the idea of inferior human races seems to have been fundamental. Someone had to be the subhuman or his theory didn’t make sense.
See also: Was Neanderthal man fully human? The role racism played in assessing the evidence
In any Darwinian scheme, someone must be the subhuman. Otherwise, there is no beginning to human history.
Do racial assumptions prevent recognizing Homo erectus as fully human?
Follow UD News at Twitter!