The debate "Darwinism Increased Racism" was started by
November 24, 2019, 8:43 am.
13 people are on the agree side of this discussion, while 23 people are on the disagree side.
That might be enough to see the common perception.
It looks like most people are against to this statement.
jrardin12 posted 8 arguments to the agreers part.
Nemiroff posted 14 arguments, historybuff posted 1 argument to the disagreers part.
jrardin12, benmiller, Nemiroff, Facundo4261Arg and 9 visitors agree.
historybuff, TheExistentialist, RoyDierlijk, marky and 19 visitors disagree.
in my own personal opinion. Racism has always existed. Racism wasn't really a big issue unless we are talking about slavery, Or having no human rights. For me, right now, People are taking it to seriously, No one in the U.S is a slave, they have there rights.
I'd still say more people are converted to racism by corrupt versions of evolution than racists being converted to non-racism by a correct understanding of evolution.
With even recent studies coming out showing average scores on IQ tests are different between ethnicities I doubt they'd have a hope in hell of being converted. The point of Social Darwinism was the pressures in civilisation select for traits that benefit living in a civilisation and are different than the selective pressures outside of civilisation. Even if those selective pressures weren't large enough to create separate species I doubt racists would stop believing they're superior. I'd say they'd be more stubborn to convert with evolution than a non-racist
errr noticed a technicality error.
let me substitute
"does nasa promote flat earth"
"does nasa therefore contribute to the spreading if flat earth"?
if it persuaded non racists to be racists then you are arguing it made racists out of non racists. your first 2 sentences are contradictions.
social darwinism certainly exists, and he was referenced in it, much like flat earthers reference select nasa information. does that mean nasa promotes flat earth? absurd.
im sure a few isolated people were convinced by racist arguments. im sure many realized the true implications that we are all one species, and from the subsequent book, that even "savages" can be easily civilized within their lifetimes using social, not genetic changes.
thus if the net effect was less racism, even with a few anecdotal racist converts, it would be wrong to claim that it increased racism.
time is also important. social darwinism was pushed by powerful politicians and won in the beginning, his claim was certainly correct at first. but with time the pendulum swung back, and truth of the theory overcame kneejerk presumptions. today, his claim is likely very wrong.
I didn't claim the theory actively created racists out of non racists. I claimed the theory was co-opted by racists to persuade non-racists and pointed out the originator of information loses ownership after they disseminate their information. Do you reject that racist work in evolution occurred after Darwin's evidence for evolution? Does social Darwinism not exist? Do you think Darwin's work wasn't referenced in it? Do you really think a non-racist was never persuaded to be racist using racist evolutionary theories? I find it far more likely at least one person was convinced than no one.
That's why I brought up the point about evolution never making a racist non-racist. It obviously wouldn't. That means only 1 person needs to be convinced to be a racist for there to be an increase in racists, and that's all this argument is about. It's not about what Darwin stood for, it's not about whether evolution is valid, it's not about whether social Darwinism is Darwinism. It's about whether or not Darwin's evidence for evolution ever inspired a single person to be racist.
1. when someone asks for a reference, throwing a whole book at them is ridiculous. a specific quote is ideal, but at least name what part of the book or chapter what your referencing it is in.
2. in decent of man darwin is not shown to be racist. indeed he makes contrasts to how savage peoppe can be easily civilized within short times when taken to london for example. he notes the differences are in culture, not genetics, and reaffirms that we are all one race.
savage cultures will die out according to him, but only because the people of those cultures will embrace civilization, not because they will die out due to inferiority. their culture is inferior, not themselves.
3. rather, inferiority in darwin is viewed as those who are dumb or weak, which is a distinction he makes within a society, as weaker and dumber europeans reproduce less then stronger smarter europeans. i dont think he is implying that europeans involve numerous races.
4. please, elaborate on your own ideas. you are an extremely lazy debator. how do you expect to grow if you cant even make your own arguments!
there is a difference between not convincing people to be racist and convincing people to not be racist.
darwin made no arguments against racism, so nobody who was racist was convinced to not be racist. that doesnt mean it automatically convinced non racists to become racist.
most likely it gave already existing racists an excuse based on faulty logic and understanding for their already existing racism, but to claim that this theory actively created racists out of non racists puts the burden on the person making the claim.
You can read his racism in Descent of Man.
It doesn't really matter if an idea is hijacked, corrupted, or original. What matters in this argument is whether or not scientific evidence for evolution helped racists persuade anyone to be racist.
You say it's impossible to prove, and I agree, but I find it more likely evolution persuaded more people to be racist than it persuaded people to not be racist. That has nothing to do with the validity of evolution or whether or not it is a racist theory though.
its not good for a christian to lie.
show me where darwin said anything about black people or superior/inferior humans.
you refuse to provide any form of evidence to your claims. your use of "of course" seems like you are pushing your own ideas, and not darwins.
Darwin also didn't disuade them either. However, there is plenty of evidence that Darwin believed in a hiarchy of man. Of course Blacks and Aboriginies were closer to apes.
This is a perversion of Darwinism. A species is a group of living organisms consisting of similar individuals capable of exchanging genes or interbreeding. To make any claim that Darwinism somehow effects race is to claim that different races are incapable of interbreeding. This is clearly nonsense; we know that all human "races" can interbreed. Furthermore, the entire concept of race is a social construct not a biological one, meaning it has no bearing on fitness.
there is difference between giving an excuse to existing racists, and actually increasing racism. that will be impossible to prove. it's also very logical that the people who applied the idea of social darwinism were already racists.
once again, a connection can be made (arent we all just a few degrees of seperation from everyone), but such a connection is forced and irrelevant. darwinism is a biological theory made by a man of science who never hinted at applying it to human society. a hijacked idea is not the original idea.
no. species is unrelated to race, and survival is unrelated to "fittest."
darwins theory is based on the survival of those capable of having the most children that grow up to have more children. if it was just about fitness then dinosaurs would still be around.
also black people are able to breed with white people and have children that can have more children, thus we are all the same species with very similar genetics. according to Darwin, we are one.
The discovery of electricity did increase the number of electrocutions though. Is the discoverer ito blame? Nope. But it's undeniable that without discovering it those people wouldn't have been electrocuted.
I'd say the same applies to Darwinism leading to social Darwinism. Since social Darwinism is predicated on Darwinism, and social Darwinism inspired racism, then it's technically true that Darwin's discovery increased racism.
It's not his fault though. He didn't direct social Darwinists to apply his theories that way.
The Preservation of Favored Races is talking about species? Riiiiight.
it does not describe race, it describes species.
So which Race was more Favorable?
Check out the second part of its title.
its not in "origins of species"
can you name the book?
or provide a quote?
In both of Darwin's books.
where in darwins theory does it say that black people are "at the bottom"?
or that there are different stages within mankind?
1. racism's connection to darwinism is social dawinism. thats like saying i shouldnt use the word astronomy in a topic about the moon.
2. to my knowledge, darwin never applied his principles to human society. this was a genetic change over long periods of time. the social application has nothing to do with darwin or his proposals.
your use of the words "darwins theory of evolution was USED to justify". he had no part in this false application. if your going to claim connection due to him making a completely unrelated idea in a completely different context, then i guess every electrocution should be blamed on the discoverers of electricity!
Racism existed before Darwin, true. I didn't say it didn't, but I said racism increased after Darwin and his book. Even Stephen J. Gould admits it. Before Darwin most scientists were Bible believers. The Bible of course taught that all mankind are brothers descended from Adam and Eve. Darwinism taught that mankind is at different evolutionary stages with Blacks at the bottom.
1) no one had mentioned social darwinism until you did.
2) this is the definition of social darwinism. Of course it has something to do with Darwin.
Social Darwinism is a loose set of ideologies that emerged in the late 1800s in which Charles Darwin's theory of evolution by natural selection was used to justify certain political, social, or economic views.
social darwinism has nothing to do with Darwin or darwinism.
this is simply untrue. Racism existed long before Darwinism and continues to exist. I mean people who deny evolution exists are also often super racist.
I was talking about Darwinism. If you want to say capitalism, start another debate.
So did capitalism