Free Republic
Browse · Search
Topics · Post Article

Skip to comments.

Charles Darwin, Abolitionist
The New York Times ^ | January 29, 2009 | Christopher Benfey

Posted on 02/01/2009 2:48:48 PM PST by EveningStar

...Two arresting new books, timed to co­incide with Darwin’s 200th birthday, make the case that his epochal achievement in Victorian England can best be under­stood in relation to events — involving neither tortoises nor finches — on the other side of the Atlantic. Both books confront the touchy subject of Darwin and race head on; both conclude that Darwin, despite the pernicious spread of “social Darwinism” (the notion, popularized by Herbert Spencer, that human society progresses through the “survival of the fittest”), was no racist...

(Excerpt) Read more at ...

TOPICS: Culture/Society; News/Current Events
KEYWORDS: abolitionist; atheism; atheist; bookreview; charlesdarwin; creationism; darwin; darwinism; evolution; history; racerelations; races; racism; slavery
Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first previous 1-2021-31 last
To: RKV; Bars4Bill
RKV: The NYT gets Herbert Spencer wrong by the way.

Bars4Bill: A New York Times writer of Darwin should be taken as seriously as Obama on economics.

"Christopher Benfey (born 28 October 1954) is an American literary critic and Emily Dickinson scholar. He is the Mellon Professor of English at Mount Holyoke College." Source

In other words, he's a renowned scholar who, among other things, wrote this article for the NYT.

The kneejerk NYT dismissal is not relevant.

21 posted on 02/01/2009 5:42:02 PM PST by EveningStar (Socialism in the USA began in 1933. In 2009 it kicked into warp drive.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 8 | View Replies]

To: Bars4Bill
Weigh in, almighty coyoteman. Owooooo!

CM was suspended/banned 3-4 days ago.

22 posted on 02/01/2009 5:52:53 PM PST by tacticalogic ("Oh bother!" said Pooh, as he chambered his last round.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 20 | View Replies]

To: chuck_the_tv_out
Darwin was a racist and that his theory was largely motivated by that. this "abolitionist" stuff is just trying to cover over the real issues.

Historically speaking, they forget Lincoln was against slavery yet he didn't think Africans were equal to white Europeans.

The idea aren't mutually exclusive...
23 posted on 02/01/2009 5:54:07 PM PST by RedMonqey
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 2 | View Replies]

To: RedMonqey
One could easily (and correctly) say the philosophy's of both Christ and Darwin were corrupted by their so called disciples.

It does not indicts either thinker or their ideas nor does it abstains the actors of their evil done in their name..

24 posted on 02/01/2009 6:04:06 PM PST by RedMonqey
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 23 | View Replies]



25 posted on 02/01/2009 6:14:53 PM PST by From many - one.
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 10 | View Replies]

To: EveningStar


26 posted on 02/01/2009 9:25:33 PM PST by LiteKeeper (Beware of socialism in America; the Islamization of Eurabia)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: All
To the Atheists/anti-'religionists':

You know full well, or at least I hope you do, that almost all, if not all, of those 'wars of religion' were in fact wars of [geo-]politics, with religion used to get the general population on board with what the ruler(s) wanted.

No different at all than 'freedom' and 'democracy' being used by the secular West in modern history, and 'egalitarianism' and Islamic solidarity by the Soviet Union and terrorists to get their respective populations in line with the government (or terrorist) stance. Freeing the slaves, protecting states' rights for the War Between the States/Civil War, etc. The real reasons for war are almost always far more down-to-earth and not particularly lofty. Ideology, be it religion or some other value, just helps make it more palatable to the masses.

It is horrible that religion was used as a tool in such a way - and fortunately our freedom of religion in the First Amendment helps protect us from that - but while the wars were waged in the name of religion, religion was not the root cause.

And if you consider yourselves to be fair, rational people, you have to acknowledge that religion has worked for good in secular affairs, too. Cases in point: the Roman Catholic Church almost singlehandedly is responsible for preserving writing and other knowledge in western Europe after the fall of the Western Roman Empire; monks recorded the histories and cultures of illiterate peoples - histories we might have no idea about today without that contribution; missionaries brought the pagan barbarians into the fold, encouraging them to settle down, not be (as) violent with raping and pillaging, and work constructively; and the institution served to help unify a fractured Europe, bestowing upon largely Germanic kings and nobility the authority to rule over their subjugated largely Latin/Celtic subjects by persuading the conquered to accept their new leaders - from a romantic point of view bad, from a peace/realist point of view, good; there's a reason that the old name for Europe was 'Christendom'. Christianity was the unifying factor, the sole one.

More to the point of this article specifically, it was religion, Christian religion, that provided the impetus to ending slavery globally. From what I have seen, Darwin was racist - though the same can be said for many, many freepers who delude themselves that they are not; Darwin may have been no worse than them. Even if his views were as rosy as those expressed here, he was by no means a major player in ending slavery. Religion, Christianity, specifically the Quaker variety, was.

And as opposed to religion being used as a tool in wars, the abolition of slavery was built from a grassroots movement of devout Christians themselves, not from some clergy-hierarchy or the state.

As for slavery being condoned, that is true. Yet the topic here is racism, not slavery. Roman era slaves were not considered subhuman or even separate species based on their ancestry. Once freed, they had all the rights, bar none, of born-free people.

While not endorsing slavery, there does seem an acceptance of the practice as fact. But also explicit is that all humans come from Adam, that all humans are of one family - which is linked to why Christ can save all of us - and that Adam was fully human.

So while you could argue that Christianity acknowledged slavery - the same way Christianity acknowledged Roman Imperial rule in the face of Christian persecution, mind you - you cannot make a strong claim that Christianity supported racism.

And, face it, by 'religion' most of the time you're (at least partly) referring to Christianity.

27 posted on 02/02/2009 9:12:43 AM PST by Jedi Master Pikachu ( I've started to use 'I' again.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 17 | View Replies]

To: Jedi Master Pikachu
"Yet the topic here is racism, not slavery."

Edit: Yet the topic here is not Roman era slavery, but the race-based slavery of the latter second millennium, that was justified largely on un-Christian beliefs that blacks were not related to whites and were subhuman.

28 posted on 02/02/2009 9:25:28 AM PST by Jedi Master Pikachu ( I've started to use 'I' again.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 27 | View Replies]

To: MBB1984

“The Bible does not expressly prohibit slavery. In the light of eternity, slavery was a very secondary issue.”

Yet when to have sex with one’s wife, which cattle can graze with other cattle, mixed fabric clothes etc, etc. These are primary issues, right?

29 posted on 02/03/2009 8:52:32 AM PST by Natufian (The mesolithic wasn't so bad, was it?)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 15 | View Replies]

To: Salman
Probably because for centuries life was much, much harder than it is today, for free men and slaves. The Bible was written during that difficult time. The life expectancy of a white male in North America around 1800 was only approximately 40 years. I would expect it to be much the same for centuries before.

Life was extremely hard for most everyone except a privileged few. In certain situations slaves fared better than free individuals. In light of difficult circumstances for all but a few, slavery did not seem so terrible, relatively speaking.

As life became easier, the disparity between free and slave grew and then Christians saw slavery to be wrong.

30 posted on 02/06/2009 11:49:49 AM PST by MBB1984
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 17 | View Replies]

To: Natufian
They were primary issues to God, at least for the Israelites. Those ordinances were subsequently abolished in Christianity. I don't know the primary reasons for those laws, perhaps to keep the Israelites separated from the Canaanites, a truly evil people. Whatever the reason, it was justifiable.
31 posted on 02/06/2009 11:58:26 AM PST by MBB1984
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 29 | View Replies]

Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first previous 1-2021-31 last

Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.

Free Republic
Browse · Search
Topics · Post Article

FreeRepublic, LLC, PO BOX 9771, FRESNO, CA 93794 is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson