Challenge thread: Charles Darwin was racist... so what?

[Warden_of_the_Storm]

No, nationality has been around for centuries, not race. Nationality is different from race. Race is genes, nationality is where you were born and where you live. Race is a recent man made construct.

Except, as I said before, centuries before, nationality was seen akin to race. The English saw themselves as a race apart from the French who saw themselves as being a race apart to Spaniards or Germans.
Nationality is only a recent invention, around the 1700s.

 

[Warden_of_the_Storm]

I don't think you can show that the theory itself is racist. But these days if there was ever a hint of racism the person is cancelled, statues are torn down, history is rewritten etc.. So if it's happening with the TOE it has a lot of company.

And yet there are people who claim it is just because Darwin is racist. And I'm asking those sorts of people to show me evidence where the theory of evolution shows such purported racism.

As of yet... nothing.

 

[Skye1300]

Except, as I said before, centuries before, nationality was seen akin to race. The English saw themselves as a race apart from the French who saw themselves as being a race apart to Spaniards or Germans.
Nationality is only a recent invention, around the 1700s.

No, today nationality is seen by some as akin to race, but not in the past since they could not see it as akin to something that had not been invented yet. Nationality has been around since biblical days. Race is what started in the 1700s.

 

[Warden_of_the_Storm]

No, today nationality is seen by some as akin to race, but not in the past since they could not see it as akin to something that had not been invented yet. Nationality has been around since biblical days. Race is what started in the 1700s.

No, nationality did not exist before the 1700s and race did not start in the 1700s. Race has been around as a concept since the Romans.

 

[Skye1300]

The history of the idea of race
Race as a categorizing term referring to human beings was first used in the English language in the late 16th century. Until the 18th century it had a generalized meaning similar to other classifying terms such as type, sort, or kind. Occasional literature of Shakespeare’s time referred to a “race of saints” or “a race of bishops.” By the 18th century, race was widely used for sorting and ranking the peoples in the English colonies—Europeans who saw themselves as free people, Amerindians who had been conquered, and Africans who were being brought in as slave labour—and this usage continues today.

race - The history of the idea of race

 

[Warden_of_the_Storm]

The history of the idea of race
Race as a categorizing term referring to human beings was first used in the English language in the late 16th century. Until the 18th century it had a generalized meaning similar to other classifying terms such as type, sort, or kind. Occasional literature of Shakespeare’s time referred to a “race of saints” or “a race of bishops.” By the 18th century, race was widely used for sorting and ranking the peoples in the English colonies—Europeans who saw themselves as free people, Amerindians who had been conquered, and Africans who were being brought in as slave labour—and this usage continues today.

race - The history of the idea of race

In many ancient civilizations, individuals with widely varying physical appearances became full members of a society by growing up within that society or by adopting that society's cultural norms. (Snowden 1983; Lewis 1990)[pages needed]

Classical civilizations from Rome to China tended to invest the most importance in familial or tribal affiliation rather than an individual's physical appearance (Dikötter 1992; Goldenberg 2003). Societies still tended to equate physical characteristics, such as hair and eye colour, with psychological and moral qualities, usually assigning the highest qualities to their own people and lower qualities to the "Other", either lower classes or outsiders to their society. For example, a historian of the 3rd century Han Dynasty in the territory of present-day China describes barbarians of blond hair and green eyes as resembling "the monkeys from which they are descended".[5] (Gossett, pp. 4)

Dominant in ancient Greek and Roman conceptions of human diversity was the thesis that physical differences between different populations could be attributed to environmental factors. Though ancient peoples likely had no knowledge of evolutionary theory or genetic variability, their concepts of race could be described as malleable. Chief among environmental causes for physical difference in the ancient period were climate and geography. Though thinkers in ancient civilizations recognized differences in physical characteristics between different populations, the general consensus was that all non-Greeks were barbarians. This barbarian status, however, was not thought to be fixed; rather, one could shed the 'barbarian' status simply by adopting Greek culture.[6] (Graves 2001)[page needed]

Historical concept of race

 

[Astrid]

I didn't mean you personally, I meant you as in a person in general.

It is best if we have no further contact.

 

[AV1611VET]

Darwin repented.

 

[Warden_of_the_Storm]

Darwin repented.

He didn't, and that's not making a single attempt to answer the OP challenge.

 

[jacks]

I think the cries of "Darwin was a racist", are not so much to refute his ideas as to suggest he should be included as one of the "canceled" people. I think people wonder why some people get a pass for their racist views and others don't.

 

[AV1611VET]

He didn't, and that's not making a single attempt to answer the OP challenge.

You said Darwin was racist, then you asked "so what"?

So he repented, that's what.

Aren't you glad?

 

[BPPLEE]

In many ancient civilizations, individuals with widely varying physical appearances became full members of a society by growing up within that society or by adopting that society's cultural norms. (Snowden 1983; Lewis 1990)[pages needed]

Classical civilizations from Rome to China tended to invest the most importance in familial or tribal affiliation rather than an individual's physical appearance (Dikötter 1992; Goldenberg 2003). Societies still tended to equate physical characteristics, such as hair and eye colour, with psychological and moral qualities, usually assigning the highest qualities to their own people and lower qualities to the "Other", either lower classes or outsiders to their society. For example, a historian of the 3rd century Han Dynasty in the territory of present-day China describes barbarians of blond hair and green eyes as resembling "the monkeys from which they are descended".[5] (Gossett, pp. 4)

Dominant in ancient Greek and Roman conceptions of human diversity was the thesis that physical differences between different populations could be attributed to environmental factors. Though ancient peoples likely had no knowledge of evolutionary theory or genetic variability, their concepts of race could be described as malleable. Chief among environmental causes for physical difference in the ancient period were climate and geography. Though thinkers in ancient civilizations recognized differences in physical characteristics between different populations, the general consensus was that all non-Greeks were barbarians. This barbarian status, however, was not thought to be fixed; rather, one could shed the 'barbarian' status simply by adopting Greek culture.[6] (Graves 2001)[page needed]

Historical concept of race

" For example, a historian of the 3rd century Han Dynasty in the territory of present-day China describes barbarians of blond hair and green eyes as resembling "the monkeys from which they are descended".[5] (Gossett, pp. 4)"

"Though ancient peoples likely had no knowledge of evolutionary theory or genetic variability, their concepts of race could be described as malleable."

It sounds like they had knowledge of something similar in the 3rd century

 

[Warden_of_the_Storm]

You said Darwin was racist, then you asked "so what"?

So he repented, that's what.

Aren't you glad?

So you made no attempt to read the actual #1 post then.

So you are just trolling then.

If you've got nothing actual to contribute, just move on.

 

[Warden_of_the_Storm]

" For example, a historian of the 3rd century Han Dynasty in the territory of present-day China describes barbarians of blond hair and green eyes as resembling "the monkeys from which they are descended".[5] (Gossett, pp. 4)"

"Though ancient peoples likely had no knowledge of evolutionary theory or genetic variability, their concepts of race could be described as malleable."

It sounds like they had knowledge of something similar in the 3rd century

No, that's China. Their mythology has a lot of monkeys in it. LOTS of monkeys. Because China has a lot of monkeys in it.

 

[Pavel Mosko]

I don't want people using it to justify racism. I want something from the theory of evolution that shows it being inherently racist.

As far as I can see this sort of thing is just a tit for tat kind of retaliation when it comes to speaking out on social issues and the kind of posturing that takes place during political campaigns.

I see it all the time when American progressives want to attack the Founding Fathers and the principles that the American Constitution was built up, which allowed slavery in the Southern states as a way of suggesting that the Founding Fathers were not as good etc. as conservatives make it out to be when they speak of how the Constitution was founded in our country that is spoken of with reverence by conservatives.


Conservatives tend to return the favor when liberals speak about Woman's health care and abortion, especially with groups like Planned Parenthood. Conservatives tend to educate such people on the history of Planned Parenthood, that it was founded by Margaret Sanger A Eugenicist who wanted to reduce the number of African Americans and other undesirable minorities in the US by providing them with easy access abortion and birth control.

 

[Astrid]

" For example, a historian of the 3rd century Han Dynasty in the territory of present-day China describes barbarians of blond hair and green eyes as resembling "the monkeys from which they are descended".[5] (Gossett, pp. 4)"

"Though ancient peoples likely had no knowledge of evolutionary theory or genetic variability, their concepts of race could be described as malleable."

It sounds like they had knowledge of something similar in the 3rd century

" Monkey" is a very serious insult in our culture.
As for descended from -
Eskimos believe(d) that Caucasians are
dog children, descendents of a dog / human cross.

 

[Astrid]

As far as I can see this sort of thing is just a tit for tat kind of retaliation when it comes to speaking out on social issues and the kind of posturing that takes place during political campaigns.

I see it all the time when American progressives want to attack the Founding Fathers and the principles that the American Constitution was built up, which allowed slavery in the Southern states as a way of suggesting that the Founding Fathers were not as good etc. as conservatives make it out to be when they speak of how the Constitution was founded in our country that is spoken of with reverence by conservatives.


Conservatives tend to return the favor when liberals speak about Woman's health care and abortion, especially with groups like Planned Parenthood. Conservatives tend to educate such people on the history of Planned Parenthood, that it was founded by Margaret Sanger A Eugenicist who wanted to reduce the number of African Americans and other undesirable minorities in the US by providing them with easy access abortion and birth control.

Showing nobody is a whole lot better than they ought to be

 

[BPPLEE]

" Monkey" is a very serious insult in our culture.
As for descended from -
Eskimos believe(d) that Caucasians are
dog children, descendents of a dog / human cross.

Yes I see, here too. I was just reading about mythology in China but it says monkeys are a symbol of cleverness. Is this wrong?
"The Monkey Symbolizes Cleverness in Chinese Culture
The Monkey (with a big 'M') is the ninth of the 12 animals in the Chinese zodiac. Many Chinese try to give birth in a year of the Monkey, as they believe that this will make their babies clever. In China saying, "Your kid is like a Monkey," is perceived as praise."
The Monkey in Chinese Culture

 

[Astrid]

Yes I see, here too. I was just reading about mythology in China but it says monkeys are a symbol of cleverness. Is this wrong?
"The Monkey Symbolizes Cleverness in Chinese Culture
The Monkey (with a big 'M') is the ninth of the 12 animals in the Chinese zodiac. Many Chinese try to give birth in a year of the Monkey, as they believe that this will make their babies clever. In China saying, "Your kid is like a Monkey," is perceived as praise."
The Monkey in Chinese Culture

Is all in the context. The man who said the Euros looked like monkeys was not offering a compliment.

 

[Leaf473]

The thing about that though, as far as the melanin is concerned, if any race was more dominant than the other, wouldn't it make sense that the race with the most melanin and dominant gene be the ones on top? The sun is what gives life and what gives melanin. I mean they would have the power to eliminate all other groups just from reproduction. Why would a supposedly dominant group be so easily wiped out just from breeding? The more evolved genes should be the dominant ones. Black genes are dominant genes. When blacks mix with any other race, usually the black genes dominate the most like with Obama. So it would seem like nature likes black genes more. That's why Darwin's racism made the whole theory of evolution questionable because he wasn't looking at it logically, he looked at it in a way that he would make sure his own race would be the ones on top. Science doesn't work like that, science is supposed to be objective. Now if he wasn't racist and said all races were equal and none were better than the other, or not even separate people into races in the first place, then his theory would have had more credibility. It would still be wrong of course, but it would at least be more credible.

More melanin also means less vitamin d production in the skin, very critical before vitamin supplements were available.

So more melanin doesn't make a race dominant, just better at certain things.