Uncommon Descent Serving The Intelligent Design Community

Darwin reader: Darwin’s racism

Share
Facebook
Twitter
LinkedIn
Flipboard
Print
Email

In the face of systematic attempts to efface from public view, Darwin’s racism, a friend writes to offer quotes from Darwin’s Descent of Man:

Savages are intermediate states between people and apes:

“It has been asserted that the ear of man alone possesses a lobule; but ‘a rudiment of it is found in the gorilla’ and, as I hear from Prof. Preyer, it is not rarely absent in the negro.

“The sense of smell is of the highest importance to the greater number of mammals–to some, as the ruminants, in warning them of danger; to others, as the Carnivora, in finding their prey; to others, again, as the wild boar, for both purposes combined. But the sense of smell is of extremely slight service, if any, even to the dark coloured races of men, in whom it is much more highly developed than in the white and civilised races.”

“The account given by Humboldt of the power of smell possessed by the natives of South America is well known, and has been confirmed by others. M. Houzeau asserts that he repeatedly made experiments, and proved that Negroes and Indians could recognise persons in the dark by their odour. Dr. W. Ogle has made some curious observations on the connection between the power of smell and the colouring matter of the mucous membrane of the olfactory region as well as of the skin of the body. I have, therefore, spoken in the text of the dark-coloured races having a finer sense of smell than the white races….Those who believe in the principle of gradual evolution, will not readily admit that the sense of smell in its present state was originally acquired by man, as he now exists. He inherits the power in an enfeebled and so far rudimentary condition, from some early progenitor, to whom it was highly serviceable, and by whom it was continually used.”

[From Denyse: Decades ago, I distinguished myself by an ability to smell sugar in coffee. It wasn’t very difficult, with a bit of practice, and it helped to sort out the office coffee orders handily. My best guess is that most people could learn the art if they wanted to. Most human beings don’t even try to develop their sense of smell – we are mostly occupied with avoiding distressing smells or eliminating or else covering them up. I don’t of course, say that we humans would ever have the sense of smell of a wolf, but only that Darwin’s idea here is basically wrong and best explained by racism. ]

“It appears as if the posterior molar or wisdom-teeth were tending to become rudimentary in the more civilised races of man. These teeth are rather smaller than the other molars, as is likewise the case with the corresponding teeth in the chimpanzee and orang; and they have only two separate fangs. … In the Melanian races, on the other hand, the wisdom-teeth are usually furnished with three separate fangs, and are generally sound; they also differ from the other molars in size, less than in the Caucasian races.

“It is an interesting fact that ancient races, in this and several other cases, more frequently present structures which resemble those of the lower animals than do the modern. One chief cause seems to be that the ancient races stand somewhat nearer in the long line of descent to their remote animal-like progenitors.”

[From Denyse: The nice thing about teeth is that, if they give trouble, they can simply be pulled. I would be reluctant to found a big theory on the size or convenience of teeth, given that this  fact must have occurred to our ancestors many thousands of years ago.]

“It has often been said, as Mr. Macnamara remarks, that man can resist with impunity the greatest diversities of climate and other changes; but this is true only of the civilised races. Man in his wild condition seems to be in this respect almost as susceptible as his nearest allies, the anthropoid apes, which have never yet survived long, when removed from their native country.”
[From Denyse: Native North Americans often perished from human diseases to which they had not become immune in childhood. That is probably unrelated to the inability of anthropoid apes to stand cold climates.]

This includes the degraded morals of lower races:

“The above view of the origin and nature of the moral sense, which tells us what we ought to do, and of the conscience which reproves us if we disobey it, accords well with what we see of the early and undeveloped condition of this faculty in mankind…. A North-American Indian is well pleased with himself, and is honoured by others, when he scalps a man of another tribe; and a Dyak cuts off the head of an unoffending person, and dries it as a trophy. … With respect to savages, Mr. Winwood Reade informs me that the negroes of West Africa often commit suicide. It is well known how common it was amongst the miserable aborigines of South America after the Spanish conquest. … It has been recorded that an Indian Thug conscientiously regretted that he had not robbed and strangled as many travellers as did his father before him. In a rude state of civilisation the robbery of strangers is, indeed, generally considered as honourable.”

“As barbarians do not regard the opinion of their women, wives are commonly treated like slaves. Most savages are utterly indifferent to the sufferings of strangers, or even delight in witnessing them. It is well known that the women and children of the North-American Indians aided in torturing their enemies. Some savages take a horrid pleasure in cruelty to animals, and humanity is an unknown virtue….. Many instances could be given of the noble fidelity of savages towards each other, but not to strangers; common experience justifies the maxim of the Spaniard, “Never, never trust an Indian.”

[From Denyse: If early modern Europeans in Canada had not trusted “Indians,” they would all have died off pretty quickly.]

“The other so-called self-regarding virtues, which do not obviously, though they may really, affect the welfare of the tribe, have never been esteemed by savages, though now highly appreciated by civilised nations. The greatest intemperance is no reproach with savages.”

“I have entered into the above details on the immorality of savages, because some authors have recently taken a high view of their moral nature, or have attributed most of their crimes to mistaken benevolence. These authors appear to rest their conclusion on savages possessing those virtues which are serviceable, or even necessary, for the existence of the family and of the tribe,–qualities which they undoubtedly do possess, and often in a high degree.”

[From Denyse: Charles Darwin, let me introduce you to Hollywood, before you say any more silly things about the supposed immorality of “savages.” ]

Making slavery understandable, though of course distasteful now:

“Slavery, although in some ways beneficial during ancient times, is a great crime; yet it was not so regarded until quite recently, even by the most civilised nations. And this was especially the case, because the slaves belonged in general to a race different from that of their masters.”

[From Denyse: Not really. In ancient times, slaves were typically unransomed captives in war, convicted criminals, or people who had fallen into irrecoverable debt. In Roman times, there would be nothing unusual about being a slave to someone of the same race as oneself. Slavery based on race alone was an early modern legal invention, aimed against blacks.]

Mass killings of savages is understandable as a type of species extinction:

“At some future period, not very distant as measured by centuries, the civilised races of man will almost certainly exterminate, and replace, the savage races throughout the world. At the same time the anthropomorphous apes, as Professor Schaaffhausen has remarked will no doubt be exterminated. The break between man and his nearest allies will then be wider, for it will intervene between man in a more civilised state, as we may hope, even than the Caucasian, and some ape as low as a baboon, instead of as now between the negro or Australian and the gorilla.”

“The partial or complete extinction of many races and sub-races of man is historically known….When civilised nations come into contact with barbarians the struggle is short, except where a deadly climate gives its aid to the native race…. The grade of their civilisation seems to be a most important element in the success of competing nations. A few centuries ago Europe feared the inroads of Eastern barbarians; now any such fear would be ridiculous.”

“[Flinders Island], situated between Tasmania and Australia, is forty miles long, and from twelve to eighteen miles broad: it seems healthy, and the natives were well treated. Nevertheless, they suffered greatly in health….With respect to the cause of this extraordinary state of things, Dr. Story remarks that death followed the attempts to civilise the natives.” [–Obviously the problem was trying to civilize these barbarians!]

“Finally, although the gradual decrease and ultimate extinction of the races of man is a highly complex problem, depending on many causes which differ in different places and at different times; it is the same problem as that presented by the extinction of one of the higher animals.”

Of course the degradation extends to the intellectual:

“There is, however, no doubt that the various races, when carefully compared and measured, differ much from each other,–as in the texture of the hair, the relative proportions of all parts of the body …Their mental characteristics are likewise very distinct; chiefly as it would appear in their emotional, but partly in their intellectual faculties. Every one who has had the opportunity of comparison, must have been struck with the contrast between the taciturn, even morose, aborigines of S. America and the light-hearted, talkative negroes. There is a nearly similar contrast between the Malays and the Papuans who live under the same physical conditions, and are separated from each other only by a narrow space of sea.”

[From Denyse: I would imagine that the aborigines of South America felt some resentment over the loss of their continent to invaders from Europe … ]

” A certain amount of absorption of mulattoes into negroes must always be in progress; and this would lead to an apparent diminution of the former. The inferior vitality of mulattoes is spoken of in a trustworthy work as a well-known phenomenon; and this, although a different consideration from their lessened fertility, may perhaps be advanced as a proof of the specific distinctness of the parent races.”

“So far as we are enabled to judge, although always liable to err on this head, none of the differences between the races of man are of any direct or special service to him. The intellectual and moral or social faculties must of course be excepted from this remark.”

And… drum roll.., the main conclusion:

“The main conclusion arrived at in this work, namely, that man is descended from some lowly organised form, will, I regret to think, be highly distasteful to many. But there can hardly be a doubt that we are descended from barbarians. The astonishment which I felt on first seeing a party of Fuegians on a wild and broken shore will never be forgotten by me, for the reflection at once rushed into my mind-such were our ancestors. These men were absolutely naked and bedaubed with paint, their long hair was tangled, their mouths frothed with excitement, and their expression was wild, startled, and distrustful. … He who has seen a savage in his native land will not feel much shame, if forced to acknowledge that the blood of some more humble creature flows in his veins.”

[From Denyse: Sounds like a local rave to me. Not my ancestors (who were, as it happens, rigidly correct people, but my 2009 fellow Torontonians.)]

“For my own part I would as soon be descended from …[a] monkey, or from that old baboon… –as from a savage who delights to torture his enemies, offers up bloody sacrifices, practices infanticide without remorse, treats his wives like slaves, knows no decency, and is haunted by the grossest superstitions.

[From Denyse: Yuh, I know. I know women who have divorced guys like that too … but, when founding a theory in science, it strikes me that … ]

And let’s not forget sexism!

“The chief distinction in the intellectual powers of the two sexes is shewn by man’s attaining to a higher eminence, in whatever he takes up, than can woman–whether requiring deep thought, reason, or imagination, or merely the use of the senses and hands…We may also infer, from the law of the deviation from averages, so well illustrated by Mr. Galton, in his work on ‘Hereditary Genius,’ that if men are capable of a decided pre-eminence over women in many subjects, the average of mental power in man must be above that of woman.”

“The greater intellectual vigour and power of invention in man is probably due to natural selection, combined with the inherited effects of habit, for the most able men will have succeeded best in defending and providing for themselves and for their wives and offspring.”

[From Denyse: Re women vs. men: Actually, if we leave Darwin’s obsession with natural selection out of the matter for a moment, we can come up with a simple explanation for the difference between men’s and women’s achievements. Men are far more likely to win Nobel Prizes than women – but also far more likely to sit on Death Row.

For most normal achievements, women will do as well as men, given a chance. Women do just as well as men at being, say, a family doctor, an accountant, a real estate agent, a high school teacher, etc.

It’s only in outstanding achievements – either for good OR for ill – that men tend to dominate. One way of seeing this is that the curve of women’s achievements fits inside the curve of men’s achievements, either way.

Natural selection does not explain this because most men who have outstanding achievements do not contribute a great deal to the gene pool as a consequence.

Either they produce few or no children, or their children do nothing outstanding. So Darwin did not really have a good explanation for this fact.

What should we do? Breeding of people and letting the weak die off:

“The advancement of the welfare of mankind is a most intricate problem: all ought to refrain from marriage who cannot avoid abject poverty for their children; for poverty is not only a great evil, but tends to its own increase by leading to recklessness in marriage. On the other hand, as Mr. Galton has remarked, if the prudent avoid marriage, whilst the reckless marry, the inferior members tend to supplant the better members of society. Man, like every other animal, has no doubt advanced to his present high condition through a struggle for existence consequent on his rapid multiplication; and if he is to advance still higher, it is to be feared that he must remain subject to a severe struggle. Otherwise he would sink into indolence, and the more gifted men would not be more successful in the battle of life than the less gifted. Hence our natural rate of increase, though leading to many and obvious evils, must not be greatly diminished by any means. There should be open competition for all men; and the most able should not be prevented by laws or customs from succeeding best and rearing the largest number of offspring.”

“We civilized men, on the other hand, do our utmost to check the process of elimination; we build asylums for the imbecile, the maimed, and the sick; we institute poor-laws; and our medical men exert their utmost skill to save the life of every one to the last moment. There is reason to believe that vaccination has preserved thousands, who from a weak constitution would formerly have succumbed to small-pox. Thus the weak members of civilized societies propagate their kind. No one who has attended to the breeding of domestic animals will doubt that this must be highly injurious to the race of man. It is surprising how soon a want of care, or care wrongly directed, leads to the degeneration of a domestic race; but excepting in the case of man himself, hardly any one is so ignorant as to allow his worst animals to breed.”

[From Denyse: But how would anyone know who the “worst animals” are among people?]

Comments
In #11 tribune7 wrote:
"Why is not Mendel the one who is lionized? Why is it not claimed that modern biology hinges on Mendel (which is actually kind of accurate)?"
Clearly, tribune7 has never taken a biology course or read a biology textbook. If s/he had, s/he would have read at least one chapter on the subject of "Mendelian genetics". Mendel is indeed lionized as the founder of the science of genetics, as Darwin is as the founder of the science of biology. However, there is one big difference between Mendel and Darwin. The science developed by Mendel didn't directly contradict the dogma of the Christian church (indeed, Mendel himself was a monk when he made his discoveries, and later an abbot). Therefore, his work was not attacked by fundamentalist Christians in the way Darwin's was, and still is.Allen_MacNeill
February 15, 2009
February
02
Feb
15
15
2009
10:49 AM
10
10
49
AM
PDT
O'Leary, like most people not trained in science, apparently does not understand that what a scientist thinks and does outside her area of expertise has no bearing whatsoever on the validity of her science. That is determined by empirical testing and statistical verification. As just one example, George R. Price was a brilliant and unconventional theoretician who revolutionized the field of mathematical sociobiology. He also was clearly mentally unbalanced, and eventually committed suicide by slashing his throat with a pair of nail scissors:
"George R. Price (1922 – January 6, 1975) was an American population geneticist. Originally a physical chemist and later a science journalist, he moved to London in 1967, where he worked in theoretical biology at the Galton Laboratory, making three important contributions: first, rederiving W.D. Hamilton's work on kin selection with a new Price equation; second, introducing (with John Maynard Smith) the concept of the evolutionarily stable strategy (ESS), a central concept in game theory; and third, formalising Fisher's fundamental theorem of natural selection. A troubled man, Price converted to Christianity from atheism, and after giving all his possessions to the poor, committed suicide."[from Wikipedia, http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/George_R._Price]
That Price was a mentally unbalanced Christian (and former atheist) has absolutely no bearing whatsoever on the validity of his scientific work. In the same way (and for exactly the same reasons), Darwin's views on race, gender, or anything else outside the realm of evolutionary biology have no bearing whatsoever on the validity of his theory.Allen_MacNeill
February 15, 2009
February
02
Feb
15
15
2009
10:39 AM
10
10
39
AM
PDT
notedscholar wrote in #16:
"...the scientific community seems obsessed with defending the things Darwin was wrong about (e.g., random beneficial mutation - an oxymoron), and ideologically denies the things he was right about!"
So, notedscholar agrees that Darwin was right about racism, sexism, and the rest. Refreshing, really, to see an ID supporter making unsupported assertions about such things. Now we all know where you stand on these issues: in support of racism and sexism. Interesting: all of the evolutionary biologists at the panel last week stood foresquare against these things. We can all therefore conclude that evolutionary biologists think that racism and sexism are wrong, while notedscholar agrees that they are right.Allen_MacNeill
February 15, 2009
February
02
Feb
15
15
2009
10:25 AM
10
10
25
AM
PDT
Precisely. O'Leary's comments and quotations are not about science at all. Neither is this thread, nor most of the posts and threads on this blog. Like this thread, they're almost all about: 1) argument via analogy (which is logically invalid), 2) argument via assertion (i.e. without evidence, again logically invalid), 3) argument via character assassination, 4) guilt by association, 5) pseudo-mathematical speculation without empirical testing or validation, and/or 6) religious apologetics. Like ID, none of these arguments are remotely related to the natural sciences.Allen_MacNeill
February 15, 2009
February
02
Feb
15
15
2009
10:21 AM
10
10
21
AM
PDT
Newsflash: Panel of four evolutionary biologists during a Darwin Day celebration find Darwin to have been a great man, modern evolutionary theory to support all their social outlooks! Eugenics and evolutionary-based racism past and present 'all a big misunderstanding'! This is all a distraction. I don't see Denyse arguing that 'Darwin was racist, therefore evolution is wrong'. But the quotes provided did illustrate Darwin's views and thoughts on some particular subjects (and related to biology, no less), and how he was not only 'politically incorrect' but wrong. And also how that wrongness was related to his (unwarranted) extrapolations from his view of nature. As 11 said, this doesn't really seem to be about the science.nullasalus
February 15, 2009
February
02
Feb
15
15
2009
08:58 AM
8
08
58
AM
PDT
Added to this post should be the fact that Darwin was a chauvinist. I've mentioned it here: http://sciencedefeated.wordpress.com/2009/01/19/sex-and-intelligence-or-the-one-thing-darwin-got-right/ It's interesting to note that the scientific community seems obsessed with defending the things Darwin was wrong about (e.g., random beneficial mutation - an oxymoron), and ideologically denies the things he was right about! Notice for example the rabid response of S. Gould to the publication of the Bell's Curve. Unbelievable. NS http://sciencedefeated.wordpress.com/notedscholar
February 15, 2009
February
02
Feb
15
15
2009
08:58 AM
8
08
58
AM
PDT
mynym @13
Suppose that Newton were an alcoholic who liked to drown cute little puppies - would that make his theory of gravitation “wrong”?
You’re trying to cite evidence drawn from an imaginary world.
nullasalus is not attempting to cite evidence at all with his/her statement. It's what's known as a thought experiment, which is often used when reasoning to test the logical veracity of an idea. In this case, we're testing the idea that a scientists personal views determines the truth or falsity of any theory that originated with that scientist. Presumably, you accept Newton's theory of gravitation as essentially right (though incomplete, of course). Let us now assume only for the sake of argument that some long lost historical documents were discovered whose accuracy could be verified which indicated that Newton was, in fact, an alcoholic who liked to drown puppies. If we assume that your idea is correct, logically you must then say that the theory of gravitation is no longer a valid theory. Understand, we're not saying that this has happened, or will happen, or is even remotely likely to happen. It is only a thought experiment, the conclusion of which appears to be quite absurd. This is known as "reductio ad absurdum" and generally indicates that the idea being tested (that a scientists personal views determines the truth or falsity of any theory that originated with that scientist) is itself wrong.KRiS
February 15, 2009
February
02
Feb
15
15
2009
08:40 AM
8
08
40
AM
PDT
All of them also agreed that modern evolutionary theory: 1) has virtually eliminated race as a salient biological characteristic of humans Although Darwin used the term "selection" the theory of evolution is not a sentient being constantly "scrutinizing" things and working for Progress as we know it and so on. We are sentient beings who have to work and "select" for Progress, as there is little evidence that anything else will. 2) has provided a scientific basis for treating all people equally (since we are all genetically very similar due to our common ancestry) The theory of evolution has had very little to do with the knowledge that we ought to treat people equally yet much to do with attempts to return to Nature based paganism. That is why the so-called "theory of evolution" had a lot to do with the eugenics movement, Nazism and a continent reduced to cinders.mynym
February 15, 2009
February
02
Feb
15
15
2009
08:16 AM
8
08
16
AM
PDT
If it turned out that Darwin was a racist or worse, it wouldn’t impact the scientific validity of evolution. Yes it does because human scientia/knowledge cannot be separated humans themselves in some "pure"/dead objective form and hypotheses of "evolution" emerged from and is associated with grand mythologies of Progress to this day. That's why critics of evolution are often criticized for wanting to return to the so-called Dark Ages and so on. Evolution is woven into a mythology of Progress so it is assumed that they critics are against progress, yet it's curious how slavery was generally undermined in the "Dark Ages" as the stage was set for abolition. See: (For the Glory of God: How Monotheism Led to Reformations, Science, Witch-Hunts and the End of Slavery by Rodney Stark) Ironically Darwin turning science back into a form of Nature based paganism in the name of naturalism is linked to a re-emergence of the Roman pattern, paganism/tribalism/racism, an attempt to build an empire on the backs of slaves and even the elimination of the "Jewish influence" as an enemy of paganism. Suppose that Newton were an alcoholic who liked to drown cute little puppies - would that make his theory of gravitation “wrong”? You're trying to cite evidence drawn from an imaginary world. It's imaginary, that's all need be said of it. It seems that imaginary evidence is all that can be used to support the idea that "pure"/objective science can be separated from "dirty"/subjective sentience. In the real world we know that's not the case, that's probably why we consistently act as if it is not the case. Why is it that physicists often judge a theory by its mathematical beauty and elegance?mynym
February 15, 2009
February
02
Feb
15
15
2009
07:57 AM
7
07
57
AM
PDT
Seversky, your at 10 you've provided a list of largely anti-slavery statements by the Catholic Church. Do you really think the Pope is all powerful and every nominal Catholic would fall down and obey him? If Ted Kennedy and Nancy Pelosi lived in Cuba circa 1540, I suspect they would be slaveowners and they would find some way of ignoring any command to be otherwise from the Church. And there are plenty of Catholic clerics who like worldly praise and a soft life and who would give them support in doing so. Neither the Pope nor the Church is all powerful. And not all slavery is bad. Ask yourself this: are you, today, against slavery?tribune7
February 15, 2009
February
02
Feb
15
15
2009
05:57 AM
5
05
57
AM
PDT
Something for all -- especially Allen -- to consider: the modern synthesis is basically Darwinism tacked on to Mendelian genetics. Now as Jerry has pointed out Darwin was wrong on most things. Mendel, of course, was right on most things. Why is not Mendel the one who is lionized? Why is it not claimed that modern biology hinges on Mendel (which is actually kind of accurate)? The answer is obvious-- Darwinism is not about science.tribune7
February 15, 2009
February
02
Feb
15
15
2009
05:39 AM
5
05
39
AM
PDT
We would all do well to keep in mind that racism is a human problem and that, looking back over our history, it is hard to find any society that has been free of its taint. Some of what Darwin wrote is clearly racist by modern standards but, by the standards of his day, he was on the liberal and humane end of the political spectrum. He was also far from being what we would imagine a racist to be. As others have pointed out, he was a fervent abolitionist with regards to the slave trade, unlike a substantial part of the Christian community that not only endorsed it on Biblical grounds but, in some cases, profited from it. The author of this piece declares herself to be both Canadian and a Roman Catholic so these comments from the website of a Canadian group called Ontario Consultants on Religious Tolerance concerning Christian support of slavery could be thought of as apposite:
Circa 400 CE: St. Augustine [354 - 430 CE] speaks of the granting of freedom to slaves as a great religious virtue, and declares the Christian law against regarding God's rational creation as property. 595 CE: Pope Gregory dispatched a priest to Britain to purchase Pagan boys to work as slaves on church estates. Circa 610: Isidore of Seville wrote: "I can hardly credit that a friend of Christ, who has experienced that grace, which bestowed freedom on all, would still own slaves." In his writing "Regula monachorum" which describes the monastic life, he wrote that "God has made no difference between the soul of the slave and that of the freedman." Circa 600 CE: Pope Gregory I wrote, in Pastoral Rule: "Slaves should be told...not [to] despise their masters and recognize that they are only slaves." 655 CE: In an attempt to persuade priests to remain celibate, the 9th Council of Toledo ruled that all children of clerics were to be automatically enslaved. This ruling was later incorporated into the canon law of the church. 13th century CE: Thomas Aquinas (1225-1274) accepted the teachings of the ancient Greek Pagan philosopher, Aristotle, that slavery is "natural." 1404 CE: After Spain discovered the Canary Islands the Spanish colonized the islands In 1435 Pope Eugene IV wrote a bull to Bishop Ferdinand of Lanzarote titled "Sicut Dudum." In it, he noted that the black inhabitants of the Islands had been converted to Christianity and either baptized or promised baptism. Subsequently, many of the inhabitants were taken from their homes and enslaved. He commanded that all enslaved Christians who were inhabitants of the Canary Islands be freed from slavery. The Pope's concern appears to have been over the enslavement of Christians by Christians, not the institution of human slavery itself. 1452/4 CE: Pope Nicholas V wrote Dum Diversas which granted to the kings of Spain and Portugal the right to reduce any "Saracens [Muslims] and pagans and any other unbelievers" to perpetual slavery. 1519: Bartholomew De Las Casas, a Dominican, argued against slavery. "No one may be deprived of his liberty nor may any person be enslaved" He was ridiculed, silenced and ignored. 1537 CE: Pope Paul III wrote in Sublimis Deus about the enslavement of persons in the West and South Indies. He wrote that Satan: "... the enemy of the human race...has thought up a way, unheard of before now, by which he might impede the saving Word of God. ... Satan has stirred up some of his allies ... who are presuming to assert far and wide that the Indians be reduced to our service like brute animals. And they reduce them to slavery, treating them with afflictions we would scarcely use with brute animals. ... Rather, we decree that these same Indians should not be deprived of their liberty…and are not to be reduced to slavery." only hostile non-Christians, captured in just wars, could become slaves. 1548 CE: Pope Paul III confirmed that any individual may freely buy, sell and own slaves. Runaway slaves were to be returned to their owners for punishment. 1629 to 1661 CE: Pope Urban VIII in 1629, Pope Innocent X in 1645 and Pope Alexander VII in 1661 were all personally involved in the purchase of Muslim slaves. Late 17th century: The institution of slavery was a integral part of many societies worldwide. The Roman Catholic church only placed two restrictions on the purchase and owning of slaves: - They had to be non-Christian. - They had to be captured during "just" warfare. i.e. in wars involving Christian armies fighting for an honorable cause. Late in the 17th century, Leander, a Roman Catholic theologian, wrote:
"It is certainly a matter of faith that this sort of slavery in which a man serves his master as his slave, is altogether lawful. This is proved from Holy Scripture...It is also proved from reason for it is not unreasonable that just as things which are captured in a just war pass into the power and ownership of the victors, so persons captured in war pass into the ownership of the captors... All theologians are unanimous on this."
Does all this means that all Catholics, including the author, support slavery or that their views are irredeemably tarnished by racism? Of course it doesn't. Does it mean that the teachings of the Bible are racist on those grounds? Of course it doesn't. By the same token, Darwin's minor racism has absolutely no bearing on whether or not the theory of evolution is an accurate explanation of how life on Earth has diversified and spread since it first appeared. Neither does the fact that it was enlisted to support what we now rightly regard as the abhorrent program of the eugenicists.Seversky
February 14, 2009
February
02
Feb
14
14
2009
11:03 PM
11
11
03
PM
PDT
Factual error? The post is merely quotations of Darwin's views, with a couple of clearly identified reflections from me. It matters because of the ridiculous hagiography around Darwin, falsely linking him with Lincoln, for example. Students deserve better than that rubbish, and it won't be MY fault if they don't get it. Darwin helped provide a "scientific" basis for racism. I think that fact should just be acknowledged so that we can all move on - instead of the whitewash that has become a regular feature of the false knowledge of our times.O'Leary
February 14, 2009
February
02
Feb
14
14
2009
11:02 PM
11
11
02
PM
PDT
Unless there is a factual error in Denyse's post, I don't see why anyone would have a problem with it. Because Charles Darwin was an historical figure of great import, and because of "Darwin Day", he is natrually going to invite great scrutiny, which is a good thing. In my experience you have to be careful when discussing certain historical figures (see Martin Luther King and William T. Sherman). Some people like sanitized versions of their idols.gleaner63
February 14, 2009
February
02
Feb
14
14
2009
08:53 PM
8
08
53
PM
PDT
Allen, Aren't you embarrassed that anyone should have a Darwin Week celebration let alone Cornell. I would think you would be protesting an event like that at such a prestigious university. Did you protest it?jerry
February 14, 2009
February
02
Feb
14
14
2009
08:48 PM
8
08
48
PM
PDT
Allen, What made Darwin, "Wrong about his theory of evolution by natural selection? Wrong about his theory descent with modification?" was that the theory never received the empirical backing for him to have made the conclusions he did in his time or even today. You are right about it having nothing to do with his thoughts on race. It had all to do with the fact the was wrong on most of what he believed and was advocating. He got a couple things right and that is all and for that he is memorialized. I would have thought your panel would be complaining about the false extolment of his accomplishments. Of all your time here you have never been able to justify why Darwin should not be more than a small footnote in the history of biology. Mainly for his work on barnacles and earth worms. For that he deserves some credit but on evolution he has been discredited.jerry
February 14, 2009
February
02
Feb
14
14
2009
08:42 PM
8
08
42
PM
PDT
So, what point was O’Leary trying to make with this post? Maybe it was just to contrast his view with the one held by Alfred Russel Wallace and to point out this birthday deification thing is just a little too much.tribune7
February 14, 2009
February
02
Feb
14
14
2009
08:12 PM
8
08
12
PM
PDT
While we're on the subject, we had a panel discussion here at Cornell during our Darwin Week celebration. The topic: Evolution and Racism. Oddly enough, every single one of the panelists (which included four eminent evolutionary biologists: Warren Almann, Sylvester Gates, Kenneth Kennedy, and Will Provine) agreed that Darwin was: 1) an ardent abolitionist, 2) somewhat less racist than his contemporaries, and 3) generally wrong in his racist and sexist views, when viewed by today's standards. All of them also agreed that modern evolutionary theory: 1) has virtually eliminated race as a salient biological characteristic of humans, 2) has provided a scientific basis for treating all people equally (since we are all genetically very similar due to our common ancestry), and 3) has virtually nothing to do with racism, which is primarily an economic, political, and religious phenomenon. So, what point was O'Leary trying to make with this post?Allen_MacNeill
February 14, 2009
February
02
Feb
14
14
2009
07:22 PM
7
07
22
PM
PDT
Even granting that Darwin was racist (which I do not, especially by the standards of his day), how does this make him "wrong"? Wrong in what way? Wrong about his theory of evolution by natural selection? Wrong about his theory descent with modification? Wrong about his belief that Down House was drafty in the winter? Come on, this kind of ridiculous logical fallacy would get one of my students shredded in less than a second, by the other students in the room. What a person believes about any particular subject (and especially what a person's "character" is like) has absolutely no bearing on whether they are "right" or "wrong" about any other subject at all. Suppose that Newton were an alcoholic who liked to drown cute little puppies - would that make his theory of gravitation "wrong"? If you think people who listen to rap music are uncultured, and you found out that Richard Dawkins thinks the same thing, would that make him "right" about the theory of evolution?Allen_MacNeill
February 14, 2009
February
02
Feb
14
14
2009
07:08 PM
7
07
08
PM
PDT
Maybe it's worth being aware of the social and political baggage Darwin and others attached to the evolutionary theory. I happen to believe in evolution - though I reject the extraneous Darwinian metaphysical baggage that so often is attached to it. If it turned out that Darwin was a racist or worse, it wouldn't impact the scientific validity of evolution. It does, however, illustrate the flaws - and perhaps ugliness - of the worldview Darwin extracted from evolution. Nothing wrong with dealing with such, much as it makes some (for whatever silly reason) squirm nowadays.nullasalus
February 14, 2009
February
02
Feb
14
14
2009
07:03 PM
7
07
03
PM
PDT
If only people understood that, contrary to the common view of his time, Darwin was actually racist, then they would understand why evolution must be wrong. Thank you, O'Leary, for bringing this to everyone's attention.KRiS
February 14, 2009
February
02
Feb
14
14
2009
06:24 PM
6
06
24
PM
PDT
1 3 4 5

Leave a Reply