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

[Astrid]

Informative article!

The discovery of fire wouldn't have brought an end to natural selection imo.

Think about the demand for women who were smart enough to be able to cook

 

[sjastro]

Think about the demand for women who were smart enough to be able to cook

If I made this remark I would probably be accused of sexism.

 

[Astrid]

If I made this remark I would probably be accused of sexism.

Not by me. It's how women became smarter than men

 

[Shemjaza]

I'm getting the sense that you don't believe race can be defined.

I agree that it can't be carefully defined. But it does have a general meaning among English speakers.

Are you saying that there are no groups of people who demonstrate a particular genetic trend?

Yes and the general meaning among English speakers is not analogous to distinct ancestry like in species.

I'll give you an example: Barack Obama is an African American... but he does not have the ancestry of other African Americans.

Race, while often featuring physical markers associated with ethnicity, is in practice a primarily a social and historical construct.

I have repeatedly accepted that trends may exist in groups, but that does not justify treating the group collectively in interaction with other groups.

But perhaps I'm misunderstanding your points, can you demonstrate how you think races can be defined.

 

[Mr Laurier]

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.

Darwin was a typical upper-middle class christian of his time.
Of course he was raised to view the Irish as less human than proper Englishmen.
So was every Englishmen. It was part of being an Englishman.
He grew up with the same racist attitudes that Winston Churchill and Margaret Thatcher grew up with. He was a man of his time and class.
It was his research into evolution that caused him to doubt the racist ideas he was spoon fed from birth.

 

[Mr Laurier]

Because people feel like if he was racist then his whole theory of evolution is in question because his racism will automatically put his own race on the top of the evolutionary chain. He would not be looking at things objectively but with a biased eye. So the whole theory is not built on a solid foundation because it starts out with a lie and builds upon that.
If I tell you 2 plus 3 equals 8 then go on to build a whole theory or equation based on that, the whole equation is wrong because it builds up from something that a lie, and not correct. It's like a true or false question, if any part of the question is false, then the whole thing is false. If any part of evolution is wrong, then the whole thing is wrong.

Except no part of the theory of evolution has ever placed any "race" in any "evolutionary chain".
Darwin shocked and horrified his fellow Englishmen by suggesting that the so-called English race was not in fact superior to anyone.
While he could not overcome he classism, he was able to see that the racist ideas he had been fed from childhood, were at best, questionable.
His meeting with slaves in Argentina convinced him that African Negros were every bit as human as Englishmen. And every bit as capable of being educated, and of having noble character traits. A revolutionary idea at the time.

 

[Mr Laurier]

Well how about the fact that it breaks people down into races to begin with. There's no such thing as race. That's another falsehood it's based on.

Except it does nothing of the sort.

 

[Mr Laurier]

Darwin repented.

I did not know he had pented

 

[AV1611VET]

Darwin was a typical upper-middle class christian of his time.

Was Darwin sinister?

 

[Mr Laurier]

Was Darwin sinister?

Not at all.
He was quite normal. He was never involved in any plot or conspiracy. He never hid his face behind a cape. He never cackled at anybody.

 

[AV1611VET]

Not at all.
He was quite normal. He was never involved in any plot or conspiracy. He never hid his face behind a cape. He never cackled at anybody.

That's not what I meant.

 

[DamianWarS]

Wouldn't the complexity of the brain be a physical characteristic, even if it's too small to measure?

Differences in critical thinking ability could theoretically exist, then. Give an evolution, that seems like it would be possible imo.

if it's immeasurable then it's not worth the conversation. Critical thinking thrives in pluralistic environments which is the same environment interracial marriage thrives. If such difference existed it would be bred out.

 

[DamianWarS]

How does " strongest" explain this?
Google Image Result for https://static.independent.co.uk/s3fs-public/thumbnails/image/2020/02/03/14/olm.jpg?width=1200

put me and that salamander head to head and see who survives longer by staying in the same spot without moving. I would put my money on the salamander. This salamander has adapted in a very specific way, one that I can't compete with so is stronger in that unique adaption.

 

[Warden_of_the_Storm]

Was Darwin sinister?

No, he was dexter.

 

[AV1611VET]

No, he was dexter.

QV please:

Some famous and incredibly smart left-handed people include Benjamin Franklin, Charles Darwin, Bill Gates, Leonardo Da Vinci, Isaac Newton, and Albert Einstein.

SOURCE

 

[Warden_of_the_Storm]

QV please:


SOURCE

QV yourself:

In 1877, Darwin published A biographical sketch of an infant in Mind, a Quarterly Review of Psychology and Philosophy. The infant in question was one of his own sons. In the paper, Darwin wrote:

[T]his infant afterwards proved to be left-handed, the tendency being no doubt inherited—his grandfather, mother, and a brother having been or being left-handed.

No mention of the infant’s father (Darwin) being left-handed, then.

Was Darwin Left-Handed?

 

[Mr Laurier]

That's not what I meant.

Ok.
Please do clarify then.

 

[Mr Laurier]

Who is Darwin?
An historical footnote. A man who set us on the path to a better grasp of biology. One of several such men.

 

[St. Helens]

ADMIN HAT ON

ADMIN HAT OFF​