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

Estrid said:

Lots of things may seem to be reasonable.
Heavy things fall faster, say.

That's why it's good to go with evidence rather
than just deciding something is so coz it seem
reasonable to someone.

Click to expand...

(I believe that, give an identical size and shape, a heavier object will fall faster in an atmosphere.)

So... is there evidence?

Consider the following three statements:

Some races are taller than others.

Some races have better rhythm than others.

Some races are more intelligent than others.

Are any of those statements racist? I think most people will say No to the first, Maybe to the second, and Yes to the third.*

A basic tenant of evolution is variation imo. Height is easy to test, and most people agree that variations in height are the result of evolution. Rhythm is harder to test, and harder to find evidence for; but still general agreement imo.

Intelligence is where things get dicey. It's notoriously difficult to test, and it's hard to get funding for a test that might show one race was more intelligent, lest one be accused of being a racist. Or so I've read.

But suppose we changed the third statement to:
Some races possess traits which make them more likely to dominate, oppress, and exploit other races. Is there any evidence of that in history?

Whether any evidence in history is the result of genetics or accidents of time and place is debatable.

Given that we would expect to see variations, and there may be some evidence... What would be a purely scientific conclusion? Or at least a tentative conclusion?

Again, not saying that I endorse the above, just following it out.
_____________
*As an aside, there is somewhat of a stereotype in the USA that Asians are the most intelligent.

Warden_of_the_Storm said:

Now why would that follow? Yes, higher amounts of melanin in skin provide resistance to sunburn, but also a lack of melanin means a higher ability to absorb Vitamin D from the sun.

Click to expand...

I just used it as an example of a variation which is the result of evolution that few people would dispute or consider racist.

Can we then consider all possible variations to be non-racist?

Warden_of_the_Storm said:

This comment does pop up every so often when the theory of evolution is discussed:
"Charles Darwin was racist, which means the theory of evolution is racist!"
Or
"The theory of evolution was used to justify slavery, which means that it's racist!"

(Twice in the same thread too!)

One thing I always note with this sort of tactic, to simply discredit evolution by saying that Darwin was racist or that it was used in racist ways, is that... the people who use it really do just leave it at that and say nothing else.

ETA: Since I forgot to state: Charles Darwin may have been the person who came up with the idea for what became the modern theory of evolution, but that does not mean that his personal views dictate what the theory of evolution says. They were his own personal views and his own personal views alone. Racism has scientifically be shown to be an idiotic view and the theory of evolution has been one of the driving forces in showing that.

So my challenge is: without using the writing of Charles Darwin (which means his own works on The Origin of Species or any other books) or anything from the 19th century when slavery was practiced by the western nations, show me an example of the theory of evolution being racist.

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

Click to expand...

Some may say because of it, that it is natural to be selective .. instead of inclusive.

It will get crazier though, there was a wave of different conflicting movements trying to push the church out of the way from it's colonial throne .. but now that this is done, they're going to push each other around until there's a new king.

Many more headaches to come.

Leaf473 said:

Doesn't it seem reasonable that one race would be better at managing things and thus should be the "caretakers" of the other races?

Click to expand...

Want to take a stab at who that might be?

Warden_of_the_Storm said:

Okay, that's nice and all.

Does not in anyway address my challenge. And since you do not seem to be the sort of person who makes comments like "Charles Darwin was racist which means the theory of evolution is racist!" then I doubt I'd get an answer.

Click to expand...

I doubt you'll get a satisfactory answer, for the following reason:

You are approaching it from a logical perspective, but the problem is of a more social/emotional nature, the two premises don't actually meet.

The so what? to it is, that darwin being a figurative statue that people refer to, will probably also be defaced and knocked over just like many colonial historical figures.

it doesn't have to be logical, it just is.

Leaf473 said:

Consider the following three statements:

Some races are taller than others.

Some races have better rhythm than others.

Some races are more intelligent than others.

Are any of those statements racist?

Click to expand...

Yes, pointing this out is fundamentally racist.

Warden_of_the_Storm said:

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

Click to expand...

Classifying different races of animals as if they are all the same based on appearance, due to the observation of a small sample - is not much different than classifying different races of humans for the same reason.

Leaf473 said:

(I believe that, give an identical size and shape, a heavier object will fall faster in an atmosphere.)

So... is there evidence?

Consider the following three statements:

Some races are taller than others.

Some races have better rhythm than others.

Some races are more intelligent than others.

Are any of those statements racist? I think most people will say No to the first, Maybe to the second, and Yes to the third.*

A basic tenant of evolution is variation imo. Height is easy to test, and most people agree that variations in height are the result of evolution. Rhythm is harder to test, and harder to find evidence for; but still general agreement imo.

Intelligence is where things get dicey. It's notoriously difficult to test, and it's hard to get funding for a test that might show one race was more intelligent, lest one be accused of being a racist. Or so I've read.

But suppose we changed the third statement to:
Some races possess traits which make them more likely to dominate, oppress, and exploit other races. Is there any evidence of that in history?

Whether any evidence in history is the result of genetics or accidents of time and place is debatable.

Given that we would expect to see variations, and there may be some evidence... What would be a purely scientific conclusion? Or at least a tentative conclusion?

Again, not saying that I endorse the above, just following it out.
_____________
*As an aside, there is somewhat of a stereotype in the USA that Asians are the most intelligent.

Click to expand...

.

I have tenants in buildings in which I have an interest. Science does not have tenants.

You may mean tenets. Those are the
principles of a religion. Science is not religion and does not have tenets.

Chinese are not smarter. We just take education very seriously.

Warden_of_the_Storm said:

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)

Click to expand...

The Chinese were aware of the Roman Empire and gave a glowing if rather bizarre description of the Romans through the Han diplomat Gan Ying circa 100 BC.

Gan Ying said:

"Their kings are not permanent. They select and appoint the most worthy man. If there are unexpected calamities in the kingdom, such as frequent extraordinary winds or rains, he is unceremoniously rejected and replaced. The one who has been dismissed quietly accepts his demotion, and is not angry. The people of this country are all tall and honest. They resemble the people of the Middle Kingdom and that is why this kingdom is called Da Qin [or 'Great China']. This country produces plenty of gold [and] silver, [and of] rare and precious [things] they have luminous jade, 'bright moon pearls,' Haiji rhinoceroses, coral, yellow amber, opaque glass, whitish chalcedony, red cinnabar, green gemstones, goldthread embroideries, rugs woven with gold thread, delicate polychrome silks painted with gold, and asbestos cloth. They also have a fine cloth which some people say is made from the down of 'water sheep,' but which is made, in fact, from the cocoons of wild silkworms. They blend all sorts of fragrances, and by boiling the juice, make a compound perfume. [They have] all the precious and rare things that come from the various foreign kingdoms. They make gold and silver coins. Ten silver coins are worth one gold coin. They trade with Anxi [Parthia] and Tianzhu [Northwest India] by sea. The profit margin is ten to one. ... The king of this country always wanted to send envoys to Han, but Anxi [Parthia], wishing to control the trade in multi-coloured Chinese silks, blocked the route to prevent [the Romans] getting through [to China]."

Click to expand...

Leaf473 said:

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.

Click to expand...

Yes, I agree.

Leaf473 said:

But suppose we changed the third statement to:
Some races possess traits which make them more likely to dominate, oppress, and exploit other races. Is there any evidence of that in history?

Whether any evidence in history is the result of genetics or accidents of time and place is debatable.

Click to expand...

Yes, but even that would be racist because it would be saying some races are more aggressive, more cold hearted, more cut throat, less empathetic, more hunter instinct driven than other races which all points to being less evolved than living in a more peaceful society. The problem is labeling people as a race period, then saying that race is more likely to anything, fill in the blank.
Any time you separate people into races or groups like that, you open up a can of worms where racism becomes unavoidable. No matter how you put it, describing groups of people as being a certain way always leads to racism. That's why I say categorizing people as races has to go. It's a primitive un-evolved way of thinking. In this day and age where people can travel all around the world and are aware of different cultures, there's no need to classify people by races.

Leaf473 said:

(I believe that, give an identical size and shape, a heavier object will fall faster in an atmosphere.)

So... is there evidence?

Consider the following three statements:

Some races are taller than others.

Some races have better rhythm than others.

Some races are more intelligent than others.

Are any of those statements racist? I think most people will say No to the first, Maybe to the second, and Yes to the third.*

A basic tenant of evolution is variation imo. Height is easy to test, and most people agree that variations in height are the result of evolution. Rhythm is harder to test, and harder to find evidence for; but still general agreement imo.

Intelligence is where things get dicey. It's notoriously difficult to test, and it's hard to get funding for a test that might show one race was more intelligent, lest one be accused of being a racist. Or so I've read.

But suppose we changed the third statement to:
Some races possess traits which make them more likely to dominate, oppress, and exploit other races. Is there any evidence of that in history?

Whether any evidence in history is the result of genetics or accidents of time and place is debatable.

Given that we would expect to see variations, and there may be some evidence... What would be a purely scientific conclusion? Or at least a tentative conclusion?

Again, not saying that I endorse the above, just following it out.
_____________
*As an aside, there is somewhat of a stereotype in the USA that Asians are the most intelligent.

Click to expand...

The problem is that people mix up general trends in arbitrary groups with traits of those groups.

If there was a reliable objective measure of intelligence there is a literal ranking you could apply to any group, but that would just be a statistical trend not a trait.

The other problem with using biological terms for races is that they aren't distinct.

Separate species have little to no intermingling, however the various ethnicities and races have been mixing since before the dawn of civilisation.

Probably the biggest issue with assigning roles and attributes to races is that so many traits are consequences of cultural and societal pressures and not innate biological ones.

Leaf473 said:

I hear what you're saying.

For me, it's not critical whether Darwin was racist or not, most people back then (and even today) held some degree of racist views, if even unconsciously.

But if humans evolved, it would follow that some races would be better at some things than others. One obvious, undisputable thing is the amount of melanin in the skin giving different degrees of resistance to sunburn.

Now, not saying I endorse the following, but continuing on:
Doesn't it seem reasonable that one race would be better at managing things and thus should be the "caretakers" of the other races?

Click to expand...

how melanin helps you is based on your environment. higher amounts of melanin is better suited for hot climates where's there's lots of sun, lower amount are more suited for area that has seasonal sun activity. basically, darker skin doesn't synthesize vitamin D as efficiently as lighter skin and in temperate climates with seasonal sun activity may have vitamin D deficiency. Of course, lighter skin in hot climates can have too much exposure to sun which has its own negative impacts. One is not better than the other, they are just more suited for specific climates.

Different environments can have an impact on critical thinking and that gained knowledge is passed down from generation to generation so you don't have to reinvent the wheel every generation and the knowledge is just added on instead of starting over.

constant changing seasons with large differences are going to produce more aggressive critical thinking patterns than seasons with very little changes. For example, in order to survive the winter, you need to have a plan of what to do during the warmer months so that you don't starve or die of cold during the colder months. That plan requires critical thinking and those who are best at it survived in these climates and pass down their knowledge to the next generation for them to improve and build upon it.

However, if you're in the tropics living in a jungle with plenty of fruit-bearing trees you don't need to think about 6 months in advance, you just to think about what you need for that day to survive which has it's own skill sets but is not as demanding as planning out an entire year.

Even in these topical environments, farmers may have a critical thinking advantage over fishermen (or hunters). Although traditional communities would have people for different skills for the greater good of the community, isolated a fisherman goes where the fish are. They don't require a lot of planning ahead because they can fish to feed themselves for the day and the next day do the same whereas a farmer they require more planning so that while a crop is being planted another is being harvested so they don't go hungry. So there are a lot of reasons why critical thinking development is more aggressive in some environments over others. the more aggressive the critical thinking will lead to more progress and development in those areas. It doesn't make people or races from specific regions more or less superior but the environment can nuture critical thinking to such a degree that it may seem people from x region are on a different level.

Warden_of_the_Storm said:

This comment does pop up every so often when the theory of evolution is discussed:
"Charles Darwin was racist, which means the theory of evolution is racist!"
Or
"The theory of evolution was used to justify slavery, which means that it's racist!"

(Twice in the same thread too!)

One thing I always note with this sort of tactic, to simply discredit evolution by saying that Darwin was racist or that it was used in racist ways, is that... the people who use it really do just leave it at that and say nothing else.

ETA: Since I forgot to state: Charles Darwin may have been the person who came up with the idea for what became the modern theory of evolution, but that does not mean that his personal views dictate what the theory of evolution says. They were his own personal views and his own personal views alone. Racism has scientifically be shown to be an idiotic view and the theory of evolution has been one of the driving forces in showing that.

So my challenge is: without using the writing of Charles Darwin (which means his own works on The Origin of Species or any other books) or anything from the 19th century when slavery was practiced by the western nations, show me an example of the theory of evolution being racist.

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

Click to expand...

Calling Darwin a racist is counterintuitive. His theory of evolution has all of mankind , no matter what race, starting and finishing at the same place together. My thoughts anyway.....

Maria Billingsley said:

Calling Darwin a racist is counterintuitive.

Click to expand...

At least they acknowledge he existed.

Warden_of_the_Storm said:

I've got no idea what that has to do with asking people who claim that the theory of evolution is racist to show an example of it showing racism.

Click to expand...

Is this statement racist?
It is very likely that one race is more intelligent than the others.

Given evolution, is it likely that one race adapted to its particular environment by gaining intelligence? I would say it's very likely.

If the above statement is racist, and evolution makes it likely, then there's a close relationship between the two.

Is that what you were looking for in the OP? It may not be. One difficulty I can see is that a theory in science is probably going to use very carefully defined terms. But a word like Racist isn't probably going to be as carefully defined by people in general.

Great discussion btw.

Bradskii said:

Want to take a stab at who that might be?

Click to expand...

Nope I'd rather just speak in general terms

Leaf473 said:

Is this statement racist?
It is very likely that one race is more intelligent than the others.

Given evolution, is it likely that one race adapted to its particular environment by gaining intelligence? I would say it's very likely.

If the above statement is racist, and evolution makes it likely, then there's a close relationship between the two.

Is that what you were looking for in the OP? It may not be. One difficulty I can see is that a theory in science is probably going to use very carefully defined terms. But a word like Racist isn't probably going to be as carefully defined by people in general.

Great discussion btw.

Click to expand...

You are ignoring that they aren't distinct and any hypothetical average is merely a trend and not a trait of the group.

So, yes, defining racial groups as if trends or patterns are inherent traits of that group IS racist.