Skip to comments.Darwin reader: Darwin’s racism
Posted on 02/24/2009 7:04:56 PM PST by GodGunsGuts
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 mammalsto 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 lets not forget sexism!
The chief distinction in the intellectual powers of the two sexes is shewn by mans attaining to a higher eminence, in whatever he takes up, than can womanwhether 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?]
“You are mistaken. Very few people have the burning hatred and sheer force of will to become a Hitler. But I would argue that the Temple of Darwinistic Materialism paves the way for a Hitler, a Stalin, a Mao, a Chavez, an Ayers, an Obama, etc, etc.”
Ok, I’m glad you clarified that. People who believe in the science of evolution are not only Hitler, they are also materialists, Stalin, Mao, Chavez, Ayers, Obama.
It helps me to have this point clarified, otherwise I’d have thought you were simply being ridiculous.
“I think the take away is that Darwin is not someone to be idolized.”
You are gifted in undertstatement! You may wish to temper the message, but it was quite clear - study/belief in evolution means you are Hitler. Study of science means the preaching the merits hatred and genocide.
This is why the fundamentalist agenda will never achieve political power outside of places like Afghanistan. Most fundmentalists/creationists are not as reasoned as you (though you fall short on calling out your fellow creation believers on their over-the-top rhetoric on this thread, so you seem, if I may be direct, a tad disingenuous)
Science is not faith, it never was, but that is the argument fundamentalists/creationists must have in order to create a “holy war” mentality amongst themselves.
Fundamentalists/creationists have to define a broad category of science as “Darwinism”. They have to elevate Darwin to false-idol status when science does no such thing.
The fundamentalists/creationists have to fight the non-existent philosophical fight with the dissembling that is evident by the most profligate creationist posters on this and the many other threads, and that is that ALL believers in science are Hilterian Stalinists that do not value life, except for the scientific artifacts it provides - and that they are all atheist and materialists.
It’s the Big Lie of creationism that must be preached at the exclusion of everything else. Within this framework a fundamentalist scientist cannot exists. A Christian Engineer is a contradiction.
So, thank you for attempting to portray an all-too-rare reasoned creationist view that admits that science isn’t evil. I think that was your point.
I apologize if I am too tough on you in this post, but the Big Creationist Lie, BCL, if you will, is alive and well on this and the many threads on the subject. It is shockingly Talibanesque.
“Most fundmentalists/creationists are not as reasoned as you”
should be “Most fundmentalists/creationists ON THIS BOARD are not as reasoned as you”
Most fundamentalists I know, aren’t subscribers to the BCL.
I read your tagline “Darwinism is Satanism”. Let me add “Satanism” into the definition of the “Big Creationist Lie”, or BCL for short.
“The Evo-atheists cant stand the FACT that their big hero was a nobody who was an academic failure. He was a pathetic dabbler in a sea of professionals.”
Really? For him to raise such angst amongst you purveyors of the BCL, hundreds of years later he must have had SOMETHING going for him.
All God fearing people pay attention to the follows of Satan. The only thing that Darwin has going for him now is eternal fire. :)
“For someone who obviously fancies himself a master logician, your assertions are, I dare say, moronesque.”
LOL.....I will let others judge me on this - but I will note that there is no shortage of morons on these BCL threads, present company surely not excluded.
“All God fearing people pay attention to the follows of Satan. The only thing that Darwin has going for him now is eternal fire. :)”
Well, you have distilled the Big Creationist Lie, BCL, down to it’s basic element. My hat is off to you!
That should read “followers”
Sounds like you’re reading into the Bible what you think it ought to say, which happens all the time.
Gee, ya, you must be pretty much the smartest guy in the world and stuff, ‘cause you even like made up your own capitalized abbreviation and everything.
Evoloserism is not science and Chuck Darwin was not a scientist. Evolution is a brain-dead ideological doctrine which has brought about two world wars and two political doctrines which are responsible for tens of millions of unnecessary human deaths. The doctrine itself is so far from rational thought and has been disproven so many times and so many ways that nobody with brains or talent is defending it any longer; it's being defended by academic dead wood and losers.
“Gee, ya, you must be pretty much the smartest guy in the world and stuff, cause you even like made up your own capitalized abbreviation and everything.”
Does it bother you?
“The doctrine itself is so far from rational thought and has been disproven so many times and so many ways that nobody with brains or talent is defending it any longer; it’s being defended by academic dead wood and losers.”
I will simply take your own credentials as impeccable for this argument.
This is another facet of the BCL - science is wrong and immutable.
“it’s being defended by academic dead wood and losers.”
If that is the case - when it comes to science and the scientific process, with apologies to Beck: “Soy un perdedor”
No, laughter is good for the soul.
With apologies to Richie, “Yo no soy marinero.”
You might want to watch Ben Stein’s movie. The interview with Dawkins definitively settles the question of whether there could be such a thing as an idiot with a 180 IQ.