Is Darwinism racist?

[Entity]

Originally posted by: Riprorin

Darwin was not racist; many people, like Spencer or Davenport, have applied his theories (e.g. Social Darwinism) and have produced a distinctly racist, eugenic, or otherwise dangerous tint.

Darwin's cousin, Sir Francis Galton, who founded the eugenics movement, believed very strongly that intelligence was mainly hereditary. He was also convinced there were profound differences in mental ability between the races. He regarded Negroes as barely human at all.

Do you consider this a dangerous "tint"?

Yes, I do, and am somewhat familiar with Galton (I referenced him in one of my essays; I'll see if I can dig it up for you, if you like). The point I was attempting to make is this: Darwinism, as viewed in his original publications, is not inherently racist, despite the fact that many race-related movements have been spawned from it (I speak here of Galton, of Spencer, of Davenport, and more). Darwinism, in its strictest - and only true sense - teaches of a biological process; this process has been "adapted," if you will, to several social principles, each of which was formed on specious premises: that whites were more intelligent (as observed by their social status), that intelligence was primarily hereditary, etc. Though Darwin undoubtedly held some convictions that would be seen as exceedingly racist by today's standards, they are present very little in his biological teachings, and beyond that, I feel that judging historical figures by today's social standards is revisionism at its worst.

I don't believe that Darwinism should be eradicated from culture simply because people use it as a premise for white supremacy; nor do I believe that Christianity (as little as I support it) should be eradicated due to its potential, and historical, abuses. The tendency to distort truths to support our own delusional beliefs is, I believe, a trait which will never be eliminated; people are amazing in their resourcefulness when it comes to justification.

Rob

 

[DaveSimmons]

Recently, in Louisiana, African American State Representative Sharon Weston Broome charged that, "Darwin's ideas on how humans evolved are racist and the key reason for race problems [and] provide the main rationale for racism." As Broome logically concluded, "If evolution has provided the main rationale for racism, and we are teaching our children evolution in schools, then correspondingly we are teaching them racist principles."

If X has been used for Y, then teaching X in schools implies teching Y

Agricultural science has been used to grow drugs, so teaching agriculture is teaching kids to grow drugs.

Chemistry has been used to make bombs, so teaching chemistry is teaching kids to make bombs.

Metallurgy was used to make swords that killed people, so teaching metallurgy is teaching kids to make swords and kill people.

Guess we'd better burn all the books and go back to living in caves.

Evolution and the fact of slight genetic differences between humans in different parts of the world is science. If taught well students will understand what those differences are and are not, and that an adaptation of more or less pigmentation in the skin does not make any particular group better.

One example of teaching it well would be to point out that if you took a bunch of pale-skinned Europeans and dropped them into an enviroment like Africa then over time their skin color would change. Same people inside, darker skin outside.

 

[silverpig]

Originally posted by: Jellomancer
It doesn't work that way. "Racial" variations are physical.
Intelligence as we think of it isn't even genetic any more than insanity is genetic.

Don't believe crap written by journalists over real work researched by anthropologists.

How isn't intelligence genetic? If it was a random fluke, we'd be talking to monkeys, dogs would be curing cancer...

 

[silverpig]

Originally posted by: Riprorin

It looks at medical studies and reports the findings. News flash: blacks, whites, and asians are different from one another.

Really, how different are they?

Scientists found that if any two people from anywhere in the world were compared, the basic genetic differences between these two would typically be around 0.2 percent - even if they came from the same people group.

So-called "racial" characteristics that many think are major differences (skin color, eye shape, etc.) account for only 6 percent of this 0.2 percent variation, which amounts to a mere 0.012 percent difference generically. In other words, the so-called "racial" differences are absolutely trivial.

Recent I.Q. tests of people throughout the world have found that, with allowance for cultural differences, the I.Q. ranges of all extant identified races is extremely close. The pygmy population of Africa, supposedly the most backward race extant today, test close to average when acclimated to Western life. Few differences are found between the second and third generation pygmies living in large Australian cities who are acclimated to the established European population.

It is now widely accepted that, given equality of background and similarity of experiences, blacks as a whole closely equal whites in across the-board performance. This confirms prominent anthropologist, Ruth Benedict's early conclusion that "the most careful investigation" shows there is no significant difference between the scores of blacks and whites, even though it is difficult to control for the accumulative effects of deprivation.

? Most studies also find that Orientals and Jews score about ten points higher than Europeans. Reasons other than innate differences are often found to account for this difference, and few scientists now accept the view that genetic differences can account for the level found.

All human beings in the world today, are classified as Homo sapiens. Biologically, there really is only one race of humans.

0.012% genetic difference sounds very very trivial...

~360 000 base pairs does not.


Races are different. I don't know why it's racist to say so. It's just the way it is. Different does not necessarily mean better or worse though.

 

[Riprorin]

One example of teaching it well would be to point out that if you took a bunch of pale-skinned Europeans and dropped them into an enviroment like Africa then over time their skin color would change. Same people inside, darker skin outside.

So, if you drop a bunch of Sweedes in the Congo, over time they are going to become Negroid. Have any proof of that?

Sure you're not going to get just a bunch of sunburned Sweedes?

 

[Nemesis77]

Originally posted by: Riprorin

It looks at medical studies and reports the findings. News flash: blacks, whites, and asians are different from one another.

Really, how different are they?

I have noticed following differences between different races:

Tone of the skin (white/pink, brown, dark, black)
Differences in hair (thin and short, curly and thick etc.)
Differences in the eyes (round or narrow)

Acknowledging those differences is not racist.

 

[Nemesis77]

Originally posted by: Riprorin

One example of teaching it well would be to point out that if you took a bunch of pale-skinned Europeans and dropped them into an enviroment like Africa then over time their skin color would change. Same people inside, darker skin outside.

So, if you drop a bunch of Sweedes in the Congo, over time they are going to become Negroid. Have any proof of that?

Sure you're not going to get just a bunch of sunburned Sweedes?

Over time, you would get Swedes with darker skin, since the individuals with more pigment in their skin would be better suited to their surroundings. Note: it would take a long time for that to happen though.

 

[Riprorin]

I have noticed following differences between different races:

Tone of the skin (white/pink, brown, dark, black)
Differences in hair (thin and short, curly and thick etc.)
Differences in the eyes (round or narrow)

Agreed. But that's not what we've been talking about.

 

[Riprorin]

Over time, you would get Swedes with darker skin, since the individuals with more pigment in their skin would be better suited to their surroundings. Note: it would take a long time for that to happen though.

So, if you drop the same Swedes in China, given enough time, they'll have narrow eyes?

What's the adaptive mechanism for the shape of the eyes?

 

[WinkOsmosis]

Originally posted by: Riprorin

Over time, you would get Swedes with darker skin, since the individuals with more pigment in their skin would be better suited to their surroundings. Note: it would take a long time for that to happen though.

So, if you drop the same Swedes in China, given enough time, they'll have narrow eyes?

What's the adaptive mechanism for the shape of the eyes?

Maybe people who had other traits for survival in Asia happened to have narrow eyes.

 

[WinkOsmosis]

What are you getting at Riprorin? Are you asking if whites are smarter than blacks?
Look at IQ tests. In America, whites are smarter than blacks. It isn't because of genes, it's because of socioeconomic conditions that blacks and whites live under. And if rich blacks and poor whites were compared, who do you think would be "smarter"?

 

[Triumph]

Riprorin: Stop attacking people personally. "Ever known a black person?" COME ON, don't be such an a$$hole.

I don't believe it is racist to say that races are different. The ultra-left wing pinkos will tell you different though, because they demand that you ignore everything. Come on, it's fairly obvious that my skin is white, yours is black (or really a shade of brown), and your eyes are shaped different than mine. These are by definition, DIFFERENCES, you can't deny this. Of course, these differences don't amount to a hill of beans, except in people's imaginations.

 

[lemcc]

Darwin and Wallace gave us natural selection not evolution it self

these men had plenty of other theorys that were ultimately proved
wrong origin of species is full of ideas that are way off

so do we through out natural selection because he was wrong about other things
Mendal lied about his results but we know his theorys on genetics
to be rock solid
anyway you have to look at the theory not the man
as far as that goes natural selection is a very powerful theory
so much so its easy to try to apply it to the many other non-biological
models

oh and the swedish guy in africa thing if givin enough time

he would die most likely but if he did live long enough to mate
(which is very possible due to things like the sexy son and rare male theorys) his offspring would have some of his traits which if not a benefit would die with the individuals

transplanting organisms is a bad way to veiw natural selection

 

[CTho9305]

Originally posted by: Dudd
How is that racist? It looks at medical studies and reports the findings. News flash: blacks, whites, and asians are different from one another. I can't vouch for the accuracy of the reports he mentions, but I don't find it to be a stretch at all to believe that different races have different physical characteristics.

Blacks are statistically speaking more likely to have sickle-cell anemia. Why is that? It is believed that their environment raised the risk of contracting malaria, and it is known that sickle-cell carriers (who do not actually show symptoms of anemia) have a resistance to malaria. Thus, the risk of anemia was worth it, considering the potential losses due to malaria. I can't remember any other differences off the top of my head.

 

[tweakmm]

Originally posted by: Nemesis77

Originally posted by: Riprorin

One example of teaching it well would be to point out that if you took a bunch of pale-skinned Europeans and dropped them into an enviroment like Africa then over time their skin color would change. Same people inside, darker skin outside.

So, if you drop a bunch of Sweedes in the Congo, over time they are going to become Negroid. Have any proof of that?

Sure you're not going to get just a bunch of sunburned Sweedes?

Over time, you would get Swedes with darker skin, since the individuals with more pigment in their skin would be better suited to their surroundings. Note: it would take a long time for that to happen though.

I don't think so, if you dropped a bunch of Swedes into the Congo they would stay white because a color change would not help them survive. These arn't helpless incsects hiding from predators here. If anything a different skin color from other people would hinder the darker Swedes reproductive chances.

 

[Riprorin]

What are you getting at Riprorin? Are you asking if whites are smarter than blacks?

Quite the opposite, I'm argiung that so-called "racial" differences are absolutely trivial.

 

[Riprorin]

Riprorin: Stop attacking people personally. "Ever known a black person?" COME ON, don't be such an a$$hole.

Okay, maybe I was a bit harsh, but did you read HIS posts?

I happen to know where this guy is from and what HS he went to and it's not a stretch to deduce that he hasn't had a lot of contact with black people.

 

[Nemesis77]

Originally posted by: Riprorin

Over time, you would get Swedes with darker skin, since the individuals with more pigment in their skin would be better suited to their surroundings. Note: it would take a long time for that to happen though.

So, if you drop the same Swedes in China, given enough time, they'll have narrow eyes?

What's the adaptive mechanism for the shape of the eyes?

I don't think that those swedes would get narrow eyes. I don't know what was it that caused Asians to have narrow eyes as opposed to round eyes. But tone of skin has more to do with the surroundings one lives in than eyes do (darker skin makes it easier to cope in areas with alot of sunshine)

 

[Nemesis77]

Originally posted by: tweakmm

Originally posted by: Nemesis77

Originally posted by: Riprorin

One example of teaching it well would be to point out that if you took a bunch of pale-skinned Europeans and dropped them into an enviroment like Africa then over time their skin color would change. Same people inside, darker skin outside.

So, if you drop a bunch of Sweedes in the Congo, over time they are going to become Negroid. Have any proof of that?

Sure you're not going to get just a bunch of sunburned Sweedes?

Over time, you would get Swedes with darker skin, since the individuals with more pigment in their skin would be better suited to their surroundings. Note: it would take a long time for that to happen though.

I don't think so, if you dropped a bunch of Swedes into the Congo they would stay white because a color change would not help them survive. These arn't helpless incsects hiding from predators here. If anything a different skin color from other people would hinder the darker Swedes reproductive chances.

Of course you could say that modern techology (sun-screen etc.) has eliminated the need for darker skin. But assuming they would have to live on their own (read: with no technology) and the swedish-population was big enough, I do think that over time the ones with more pigment on their skins would be the ones who thrive, assuming everything else was equal.

 

[Rudee]

I don't judge a man according to the colour of his skin, I judge a man by the size of his nostrils. {Quote by Chevy Chase from SNL}

 

[Riprorin]

Of course you could say that modern techology (sun-screen etc.) has eliminated the need for darker skin. But assuming they would have to live on their own (read: with no technology) and the swedish-population was big enough, I do think that over time the ones with more pigment on their skins would be the ones who thrive, assuming everything else was equal.

And how long do you think this metamorphisis would take?

 

[Nemesis77]

Originally posted by: Riprorin

Of course you could say that modern techology (sun-screen etc.) has eliminated the need for darker skin. But assuming they would have to live on their own (read: with no technology) and the swedish-population was big enough, I do think that over time the ones with more pigment on their skins would be the ones who thrive, assuming everything else was equal.

And how long do you think this metamorphisis would take?

A long time. Thousands of years I guess.

 

[DaveSimmons]

So Riprorin were you trying to make a point with this thread, or just hoping for a flame war?

If you were trying to prove that (Louisiana State Representative) Sharon Weston Broome has some logical basis for wanting to halt teaching of evolution, you haven't really done so.

I notice in replying to my post you focused on my example rather than my point that Broome is not being rational in wanting to halt teaching of a subject simply because others outside of the school system have used a warped version of the subject to promote their own agenda.

Might it not be more rational to want kids to learn about the implications of evolution and natural selection in a classroom setting where they can learn that while differences in populations do exist, the differences are in trivial things like skin color and not in intellect, temperment, character?

 

[Riprorin]

If you were trying to prove that (Louisiana State Representative) Sharon Weston Broome has some logical basis for wanting to halt teaching of evolution, you haven't really done so.

Quote: African American State Representative Sharon Weston Broome charged that, "Darwin's ideas on how humans evolved are racist and the key reason for race problems [and] provide the main rationale for racism." As Broome logically concluded, "If evolution has provided the main rationale for racism, and we are teaching our children evolution in schools, then correspondingly we are teaching them racist principles."

Dave, where in this statement does it say anything about "halting the teaching of evolution"?

Do you deny that Darwin's theories and personal views on race have led to racism and unspeakable atrocities such as the Hollocaust?

 

[Nemesis77]

Originally posted by: Riprorin
Do you deny that Darwin's theories and personal views on race have led to racism and unspeakable atrocities such as the Hollocaust?

It has caused deaths because some wicked individuals have twisted to fit their perverted agenda. Darwinism is not evil. Twisting it to justify some perverted agenda is evil.

Nuclear weapons have destroyed two cities during war. Does that mean that nuclear-physics is evil?