“Favored Races” does not mean “white people.” “Favored races” = “selected species.”
This reminds me of weird creationist canards. Darwin is not responsible for social Darwinism, and distanced himself from it. He was talking about finches and tortoises.
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 civilized nations. And this was especially the case, because the slaves belonged in general to a race different from that of their masters. As barbarians do not regard the opinion of their women, wives are commonly treated like slaves.
Like these are not the words of an evil sexist pro slavery eugenicist. I would not argue that Darwin wasn’t sexist or racist at all - it’s the 1800s, they all are - but Darwin is not responsible for eugenics/social Darwinism.
Indeed, he articulated this same principle in his scientific study of human evolution, The Descent of Man (1871), where he claimed, “At some future period, not very distant as measured by centuries, the civilised races of man will almost certainly exterminate and replace throughout the world the savage races.”
Not only racism, but racial extermination was an integral feature of Darwin’s theory from the start.
There is more this is only a small part. Darwin also had passion for misoginy
I’m genuinely surprised to see creationist apologia on Lemmy. Here’s another article from the same website:
“When Christians Embrace Scientific Materialism”
West explains that “Stockholm syndrome” refers to the tendency of a victim to bond with or sympathize with his or her captor. West uses this phenomenon to describe the damage some influential Christians do when they decide to reject historical biblical teaching in favor of scientific materialism. One symptom of Stockholm Syndrome Christianity in science is a diminished role for God in Creation. As Exhibit A for this symptom, West chooses Francis Collins, arguably the most celebrated evangelical Christian scientist in America. Collins, who rose to fame through his work on the Human Genome Project and his bestselling book The Language of God, is admired by Christian leaders and laypeople alike as an exemplary model of a faithful Christian in science. But West contends that Collins’s model for integrating faith and science is deeply flawed. From failing to challenge the secular establishment in the areas of abortion and sexuality as head of the National Institutes of Health to a years-long quest to marginalize and attack Christian scientists and scholars skeptical of Darwinian evolution, West explains how Collins has fallen prey to Stockholm Syndrome Christianity. West also describes modern theistic evolution, the flawed theological perspective that has inspired many of Collins’s scientific positions.
It might not surprise you then that that Darwin quote is taken dishonestly out of context:
But these breaks depend merely on the number of related forms which have become extinct. 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 (18. ‘Anthropological Review,’ April 1867, p. 236.), 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.
With respect to the absence of fossil remains, serving to connect man with his ape-like progenitors, no one will lay much stress on this fact who reads Sir C. Lyell’s discussion (19. ‘Elements of Geology,’ 1865, pp. 583- 585. ‘Antiquity of Man,’ 1863, p. 145.), where he shews that in all the vertebrate classes the discovery of fossil remains has been a very slow and fortuitous process. Nor should it be forgotten that those regions which are the most likely to afford remains connecting man with some extinct ape- like creature, have not as yet been searched by geologists.
Eg, he’s talking about the elimination of a taxonomic distinction not violence or subjugation.
At this point, I’m not sure if you are being intellectually honest or if this is a weird crypto creationist propaganda thing.
Do you think Darwin meant this in an aspirational or observational way?
Don’t pretend Darwin and Galton were the same person just because they were related.
“Favored Races” does not mean “white people.” “Favored races” = “selected species.”
This reminds me of weird creationist canards. Darwin is not responsible for social Darwinism, and distanced himself from it. He was talking about finches and tortoises.
Darwins was pretty bullish on white surpremacy and sexism.
https://wng.org/roundups/darwins-racism-1617223432
After religion took a nosedive it was very convenient that slaves and colonies suddenly turned out to be “biologically inferior” humans.
People twisted Darwinism. Don’t blame this on him.
That’s not talking about Darwin’s views though, that’s talking about how scientific racism adapted and distorted Darwinism.
Darwin was against slavery and connected to several abolitionists. Darwin never really promoted social Darwinism, and his writings point out how human society does take care of its weak/those who would not otherwise survive.
Like these are not the words of an evil sexist pro slavery eugenicist. I would not argue that Darwin wasn’t sexist or racist at all - it’s the 1800s, they all are - but Darwin is not responsible for eugenics/social Darwinism.
The article I linked previously was the top result this one might be slightly better it contains some quotes
There is more this is only a small part. Darwin also had passion for misoginy
I’m genuinely surprised to see creationist apologia on Lemmy. Here’s another article from the same website:
“When Christians Embrace Scientific Materialism”
It might not surprise you then that that Darwin quote is taken dishonestly out of context:
Eg, he’s talking about the elimination of a taxonomic distinction not violence or subjugation.
At this point, I’m not sure if you are being intellectually honest or if this is a weird crypto creationist propaganda thing.
Both of these people are acting like Darwin and Galton were the same person and I think it’s intentional dishonesty.