Of course Darwinism can’t be distanced from racism. You just have to read what Darwin actually said, as Michael Flannery quotes, while dealing with a typical attempt to sanitize Darwin’s record:
Historically, Darwin and his cohorts were just as racist and gender biased as Cope or anyone else of their era. As I have pointed out, Darwin was certainly as racist as the notorious species fixist Louis Agassiz. And Darwin’s Bulldog, Thomas Henry Huxley (1825-1895), was no better, arguing shortly after the American Civil War that blacks were doomed now that they were cut free from the purported protective influences of their owners. Huxley stated boldly that “no rational man, cognizant of the facts, believes that the average negro is the equal, still less the superior, of the average white man.” In fact, one man did, the Darwinists’ arch enemy Richard Owen (1804-1892). A fascinating examination of this important point is presented in Christopher E. Cosans’ Owen’s Ape & Darwin’s Bulldog…
Writing to the Rev. Charles Kingsley (1819-1879) on February 6, 1862, he stated, “It is very true what you say about the higher races of men, when high enough, replacing & clearing off the lower races. In 500 years how the Anglo-Saxon race will have spread & exterminated whole nations; & in consequence how much the human race, viewed as a unit, will have risen in rank.” He voiced the same sentiment years later in a letter to Irish philosopher and political economist William Graham (1839-1911) on July 3, 1881, “Remember what risks the nations of Europe ran, not so many centuries ago of being overwhelmed by the Turks, and how ridiculous such an idea now is. The more civilised so-called Caucasian races have beaten the Turkish hollow in the struggle for existence. Looking to the world at no very distant date, what an endless number of the lower races will have been eliminated by the higher civilised races throughout the world.”Michael Flannery, “Distancing Darwin from Racism Is a Fool’s Errand” at Evolution News and Science Today
Some of us have pointed this out before: As a theory of human origins, Darwinism requires that someone must be the subhuman and, whaddayaknow, it’s the outsider.
Of course creationists can be racists and often have been. But if you believe that all human beings are descended from a single ancestral couple, that theory does not, in and of itself, provide a basis for racism. If, of course, you believe that humanity in its present form is the outcome of a constant struggle for survival of the fittest (Darwinism) among various protohuman/human groups, then… racism would be an easier temptation.
2 Replies to “Science historian Michael Flannery: Darwinism can’t be distanced from racism”
Darwin’s books led to two distinct mindsets that brought death and misery wherever they came to power, and continue to this day. His first book led to the rise of totalitarian dictators who ruled through force with the idea that the strong have a duty to conquer and destroy the weak for the benefit of stronger future generations with no regard to race. His second book led to the rise of totalitarian dictators who ruled through force with the idea that the strong have a duty to conquer and destroy the weak for the benefit of stronger future generations with regard to race.
BobRyan, the most murderous and barbaric offing of native people by foreigners of another “culture” have NOTHING to do with Darwin. The English murdered Irishmen in Ireland for “being Irish”, “beyond the Pale-wise”.
Having read a WHOLE lotta History, I can’t think of a SINGLE CASE where the specific cause was the massacre-ee’s Race. The Bantu are murdering both White and Black people all over Africa because, well, Bantu’s LIKE to murder people. And the Bolsheviks murdered Ukrainians because… they weren’t Communist enough.
In the US, White Americans attempted any number of times to live peacefully with American Indians, but a KEY feature of Indian “culture” was MURDERING people, torture being their attempt to get entertainment when you can’t get Cable. And of course the Romans, under Caesar, murdered MILLIONS (6 million? I have a number someplace) of Gauls and Britons because, well, Caesar didn’t have to go back to Rome to face a death sentence as long as he was involved in putting down a “rebellion” in his province.
So, ya wanna give me a SINGLE example of where any substantial number of Race B was offed by Race A because Race A was guided by a DEEP understanding of Darwinism?
Even in the cases of “racial” (i.e., Ethnic) exclusions that included killing (e.g., the Poles driving out ethnic Germans in the 1930s), it was ALWAYS a matter of “Poland for the Poles”, since ALL of the people involved (except the Hebrews) were Indo-Europeans, i.e., Aryans.
By the time there is ANY widespread knowledge of Darwinism, the evil horrid Whites were killing non-Whites (and LOTS of fellow Indo-Europeans) because the non-Whites (e.g., Zulus) are not co-operating with the White colonialists.
So I ain’t seein’ it. SOME White colonialists read Darwin. MOST of ’em did NOT.