| Topic: |
Religions > Atheism |
| User: |
"david ford" |
| Date: |
17 Jan 2005 02:46:38 PM |
| Object: |
Evidence that Darwin was racist? |
According to Dawkins, Darwin was racist. See
Dawkins, Richard. 2004. "Dolittle and Darwin" in _Curious Minds: How a
Child Becomes a Scientist_, edited by John Brockman (New York: Pantheon
Books), 236pp., 121-129, 125.
What evidence is there to support Dawkins's claim that Darwin was racist?
.
|
|
| User: "Steven J." |
|
| Title: Re: Evidence that Darwin was racist? |
17 Jan 2005 11:41:53 PM |
|
|
"david ford" <dford3@gl.umbc.edu> wrote in message
news:dford3-352mh4F4hphbdU2@individual.net...
According to Dawkins, Darwin was racist. See
Dawkins, Richard. 2004. "Dolittle and Darwin" in _Curious Minds: How a
Child Becomes a Scientist_, edited by John Brockman (New York: Pantheon
Books), 236pp., 121-129, 125.
I do not have this text handy. I suspect the relevant passage is fairly
short, and would readily fall within the "fair use" exception to copyright.
Why don't you post it, so that we can comment on what Dawkins actually says?
Given your past use of, e.g. Daniel C. Dennett, or indeed passages from
Darwin himself, I don't entirely trust your interpretation of texts.
Now, Darwin seems to me inconsistent on this issue. On the one hand, he
recognized that his theory -- requiring and emphasizing variation within
every group, and the absence of sharp boundaries (at least historically)
between related groups -- was inconsistent with racism. As he explicitly
noted, there was no trait on which one could base a claim of racial
superiority which was possessed by all members of the supposed "superior"
group, and by no members of the supposed "inferior" group. Indeed, his idea
of branching descent -- an evolutionary tree -- with different groups each
"fittest" in some particular niche, rather than arranged on a Lamarckian
evolutionary ladder, is a major step away from the entire idea of superior
and inferior groups.
On the other hand, Darwin did not rigidly distinguish, in discussing humans,
between cultural and genetic traits (of course, he didn't know genes
existed, or how heredity worked -- with his views of how heredity might
work, not distinguishing rigidly between culture and heredity made more
sense), and spoke of, e.g. the Turks (whose empire was "the sick man of
Europe" in his day) as losing out to "fitter" European peoples (and,
contrary to his position outlined above, this tends to treat "Turks" as an
undifferentiated mass). Likewise, his disdain for the stone-age Tierra del
Fuegans shows through in some of his writings about them.
All this suggests that he did not *entirely* adapt his own dispositions to
his theory (and, OTOH, his opposition to slavery -- a common attitude in his
and his wife's family -- surely predates his formulation of the theory).
But it does not, so far as I can see, reflect on the theory itself. As I've
noted elsewhere, evolutionary theory is not a religion, Darwin is not its
prophet, and his writings are not its scripture. The theory does not
consist of or depend on everything Darwin thought or wrote, or rest on his
personal authority.
What evidence is there to support Dawkins's claim that Darwin was racist?
I suspect that Dawkins's claim was that Darwin was racist, juding by modern
standards (e.g. those of a regular reader of the _Guardian_). Judged by
different, perhaps more indulgent standards and a narrower definition of
"racism," Darwin might be otherwised judged. As noted, he seems to have
explicitly denied that all members of any human group were inferior to all
members of any other, or that all members of some group ought to be
consigned to an inferior social position with inferior rights.
-- Steven J.
.
|
|
|
|
| User: "Iain" |
|
| Title: Re: Evidence that Darwin was racist? |
27 Jan 2005 04:47:14 AM |
|
|
"david ford" <dford3@gl.umbc.edu> wrote in message
news:dford3-352mh4F4hphbdU2@individual.net...
According to Dawkins, Darwin was racist. See
Dawkins, Richard. 2004. "Dolittle and Darwin" in _Curious Minds: How a
Child Becomes a Scientist_, edited by John Brockman (New York: Pantheon
Books), 236pp., 121-129, 125.
What evidence is there to support Dawkins's claim that Darwin was racist?
Who cares? He wasn't a politician or celebrity, just a sound scientist.
~Iain
.
|
|
|
|
| User: "Bob" |
|
| Title: Re: Evidence that Darwin was racist? |
17 Jan 2005 03:05:43 PM |
|
|
On Mon, 17 Jan 2005 15:46:38 -0500, david ford <dford3@gl.umbc.edu>
wrote:
According to Dawkins, Darwin was racist. See
Dawkins, Richard. 2004. "Dolittle and Darwin" in _Curious Minds: How a
Child Becomes a Scientist_, edited by John Brockman (New York: Pantheon
Books), 236pp., 121-129, 125.
What evidence is there to support Dawkins's claim that Darwin was racist?
racism in darwin?
for racism in creationist literature, one need only look at the essay
written by jefferson davis on how slavery was god's will and blacks
suffered the curse of ham
or the statements of senator james jackson, contemporary of thomas
jefferson on the same subject
or the massacre in rwandwa where the tutsis believed that since they
were lighter skinned than the hutus, on the basis of creationism, they
were superior. and that was in 1994
ford has a jaundiced view of racism, and is an apologist for
contemporary creationist racism
---------------------------
to see who "wf3h" is, go to "qrz.com"
and enter 'wf3h' in the field
.
|
|
|
| User: "Dan Wood" |
|
| Title: Re: Evidence that Darwin was racist? |
24 Jan 2005 11:34:56 AM |
|
|
"Bob" <wf3h@ptd.net> wrote in message
news:41ec282d.12062767@usenet.ptd.net...
On Mon, 17 Jan 2005 15:46:38 -0500, david ford <dford3@gl.umbc.edu>
wrote:
According to Dawkins, Darwin was racist. See
Dawkins, Richard. 2004. "Dolittle and Darwin" in _Curious Minds: How a
Child Becomes a Scientist_, edited by John Brockman (New York: Pantheon
Books), 236pp., 121-129, 125.
What evidence is there to support Dawkins's claim that Darwin was racist?
racism in darwin?
for racism in creationist literature, one need only look at the essay
written by jefferson davis on how slavery was god's will and blacks
suffered the curse of ham
or the statements of senator james jackson, contemporary of thomas
jefferson on the same subject
or the massacre in rwandwa where the tutsis believed that since they
were lighter skinned than the hutus, on the basis of creationism, they
were superior. and that was in 1994
I don't know about creationism having anything to do with this
horror in Rwanda, but this genocide was started by the Hutus.
It lasted 100 days and 1,000,000 tutsis were slaughtered by
the rampaging hutus.
Dr. Dan Wood.
http://www.orwelltoday.com/rwanda.ahtml
..
ford has a jaundiced view of racism, and is an apologist for
contemporary creationist racism
---------------------------
to see who "wf3h" is, go to "qrz.com"
and enter 'wf3h' in the field
.
|
|
|
| User: "Bob" |
|
| Title: Re: Evidence that Darwin was racist? |
24 Jan 2005 07:58:53 AM |
|
|
On Mon, 24 Jan 2005 12:34:56 -0500, "Dan Wood" <woody@bellsouth.net>
wrote:
"Bob" <wf3h@ptd.net> wrote in message
or the massacre in rwandwa where the tutsis believed that since they
were lighter skinned than the hutus, on the basis of creationism, they
were superior. and that was in 1994
I don't know about creationism having anything to do with this
horror in Rwanda, but this genocide was started by the Hutus.
It lasted 100 days and 1,000,000 tutsis were slaughtered by
the rampaging hutus.
according to gourevitch's book, the tutsis were lighter skinned than
the hutus. the tutsis were taught by creationists that the hutus had
the curse of ham on them, and were inferior to the tutsis.
---------------------------
to see who "wf3h" is, go to "qrz.com"
and enter 'wf3h' in the field
.
|
|
|
| User: "Dan Wood" |
|
| Title: Re: Evidence that Darwin was racist? |
25 Jan 2005 01:40:05 AM |
|
|
"Bob" <wf3h@ptd.net> wrote in message
news:41f4fee5.39479134@usenet.ptd.net...
On Mon, 24 Jan 2005 12:34:56 -0500, "Dan Wood" <woody@bellsouth.net>
wrote:
"Bob" <wf3h@ptd.net> wrote in message
or the massacre in rwandwa where the tutsis believed that since they
were lighter skinned than the hutus, on the basis of creationism, they
were superior. and that was in 1994
I don't know about creationism having anything to do with this
horror in Rwanda, but this genocide was started by the Hutus.
It lasted 100 days and 1,000,000 tutsis were slaughtered by
the rampaging hutus.
according to gourevitch's book, the tutsis were lighter skinned than
the hutus. the tutsis were taught by creationists that the hutus had
the curse of ham on them, and were inferior to the tutsis.
According to the BBC, "between April and June 1994, an estimated
800,000 Rwandans were killed in the space of 100 days'."
"Most of the dead were Tutsis and most of those who perpetrated the
violence were Hutus"
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world/africa/1288230stm
Maybe what you were discussing led up to this, but it appears,
based upon what I am able to find on the net that the Hutus
were the perpetrators of the violence. I realize that sometimes
the news is slanted to downplay one side and enhance the
other. In my local newspaper, certain groups in the US are
bringing over some 400 Hutus families, to be resettled and
integrated into our community. These are refugees from the
war in Rwanda. These people can neither read or write are
totally uneducated and most have never seen a flush toilet.
It will not be easy, but it's the right thing to do. I have
volunteered my services.
Dan Wood, DDS (retired)
---------------------------
to see who "wf3h" is, go to "qrz.com"
and enter 'wf3h' in the field
.
|
|
|
| User: "DylanBD" |
|
| Title: Re: Evidence that Darwin was racist? |
25 Jan 2005 12:54:41 AM |
|
|
"Dan Wood" <woody@bellsouth.net> wrote:
"Bob" <wf3h@ptd.net> wrote in message
or the massacre in rwandwa where the tutsis believed
that since they were lighter skinned than the hutus,
on the basis of creationism, they were superior. and that was in 1994
I don't know about creationism having anything to do with this
horror in Rwanda, but this genocide was started by the Hutus.
It lasted 100 days and 1,000,000 tutsis were slaughtered by
the rampaging hutus.
The Tutsis have been wealthier and more powerful than the Hutus since before
the colonial period, and the tension between the groups dates back to then.
Traditionally, the Tutsis controlled the cattle that were the source of
wealth.
However, under Belgian rule the Tutsi minority's privilege was formalized
under a kind of quasi-apartheid system. Tutsis had more access to education
and government jobs, despite being only about 15% of the population.
But under Belgian rule the Hutus became more and more unified and organized.
After independence in 1959, it was the formerly low-class Hutus who took
control in a bloody civil war. The ethnic separation remained, but now with
the Hutus on top and the Tutsis on the bottom.
Many Tutsis fled the country and lived as refugees in neighboring states.
In 1990, an army of these exiles invaded from the north. The war lasted for
three years, and was ended by a power-sharing agreement to be administered
by the U.N.
The Hutu government could not accept the idea of sharing power. They
stirred up the old resentments against the Tutsis from the time when they
were a privileged minority to provoke the genocide.
Here's an interview with a few more details:
http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/pages/frontline/shows/evil/interviews/gourevitch.html
.
|
|
|
|
| User: "Bob" |
|
| Title: Re: Evidence that Darwin was racist? |
24 Jan 2005 01:52:50 PM |
|
|
On Tue, 25 Jan 2005 02:40:05 -0500, "Dan Wood" <woody@bellsouth.net>
wrote:
"Bob" <wf3h@ptd.net> wrote in message
according to gourevitch's book, the tutsis were lighter skinned than
the hutus. the tutsis were taught by creationists that the hutus had
the curse of ham on them, and were inferior to the tutsis.
According to the BBC, "between April and June 1994, an estimated
800,000 Rwandans were killed in the space of 100 days'."
"Most of the dead were Tutsis and most of those who perpetrated the
violence were Hutus"
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world/africa/1288230stm
yes that is correct. the 'inferior' hutus (inferior in a creationist
sense) murdered the 'superior' tutsis.
---------------------------
to see who "wf3h" is, go to "qrz.com"
and enter 'wf3h' in the field
.
|
|
|
| User: "John Wilkins" |
|
| Title: Re: Evidence that Darwin was racist? |
24 Jan 2005 04:13:09 PM |
|
|
Bob <wf3h@ptd.net> wrote:
On Tue, 25 Jan 2005 02:40:05 -0500, "Dan Wood" <woody@bellsouth.net>
wrote:
"Bob" <wf3h@ptd.net> wrote in message
according to gourevitch's book, the tutsis were lighter skinned than
the hutus. the tutsis were taught by creationists that the hutus had
the curse of ham on them, and were inferior to the tutsis.
According to the BBC, "between April and June 1994, an estimated
800,000 Rwandans were killed in the space of 100 days'."
"Most of the dead were Tutsis and most of those who perpetrated the
violence were Hutus"
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world/africa/1288230stm
yes that is correct. the 'inferior' hutus (inferior in a creationist
sense) murdered the 'superior' tutsis.
I had heard that the Tutsis viewed themselves, on the basis of skin
colour and nose shape, as "more European" than the Hutus, and thus
lorded it over them in Ruanda. Hutus resented this, rather naturally,
and the genocide was triggered off by (if memory serves) preachers
attacking Tutsi superiority. This was on radio reports, so I can't vouch
for or reference anything.
--
John S. Wilkins AA#2207
web: www.wilkins.id.au blog: evolvethought.blogspot.com
God cheats
.
|
|
|
| User: "Bob" |
|
| Title: Re: Evidence that Darwin was racist? |
24 Jan 2005 09:01:19 PM |
|
|
On Tue, 25 Jan 2005 09:13:09 +1100, (John
Wilkins) wrote:
Bob <wf3h@ptd.net> wrote:
yes that is correct. the 'inferior' hutus (inferior in a creationist
sense) murdered the 'superior' tutsis.
I had heard that the Tutsis viewed themselves, on the basis of skin
colour and nose shape, as "more European" than the Hutus, and thus
lorded it over them in Ruanda. Hutus resented this, rather naturally,
and the genocide was triggered off by (if memory serves) preachers
attacking Tutsi superiority. This was on radio reports, so I can't vouch
for or reference anything.
that is the way i remember gourevitch stating it in his book.
---------------------------
to see who "wf3h" is, go to "qrz.com"
and enter 'wf3h' in the field
.
|
|
|
| User: "shooty" |
|
| Title: Re: Evidence that Darwin was racist? |
25 Jan 2005 04:08:35 AM |
|
|
I thought it was to do with the way the Belgians set up the
administration of their colony. Membership of either Hutu or Tutsi
group was decided by wealth and the Tutsi were given any work in the
administration in preference to the Hutu.
.
|
|
|
|
|
|
| User: "John Harshman" |
|
| Title: Re: Evidence that Darwin was racist? |
24 Jan 2005 02:10:54 PM |
|
|
Bob wrote:
On Tue, 25 Jan 2005 02:40:05 -0500, "Dan Wood" <woody@bellsouth.net>
wrote:
"Bob" <wf3h@ptd.net> wrote in message
according to gourevitch's book, the tutsis were lighter skinned than
the hutus. the tutsis were taught by creationists that the hutus had
the curse of ham on them, and were inferior to the tutsis.
According to the BBC, "between April and June 1994, an estimated
800,000 Rwandans were killed in the space of 100 days'."
"Most of the dead were Tutsis and most of those who perpetrated the
violence were Hutus"
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world/africa/1288230stm
yes that is correct. the 'inferior' hutus (inferior in a creationist
sense) murdered the 'superior' tutsis.
The connection to creationism, if any, seems highly indirect.
.
|
|
|
| User: "Bob" |
|
| Title: Re: Evidence that Darwin was racist? |
24 Jan 2005 03:08:00 PM |
|
|
On Mon, 24 Jan 2005 20:10:54 GMT, John Harshman
<jharshman.diespamdie@pacbell.net> wrote:
Bob wrote:
yes that is correct. the 'inferior' hutus (inferior in a creationist
sense) murdered the 'superior' tutsis.
The connection to creationism, if any, seems highly indirect.
it was direct enough for gourevitch to mention it in his book
---------------------------
to see who "wf3h" is, go to "qrz.com"
and enter 'wf3h' in the field
.
|
|
|
| User: "John Harshman" |
|
| Title: Re: Evidence that Darwin was racist? |
24 Jan 2005 03:26:07 PM |
|
|
Bob wrote:
On Mon, 24 Jan 2005 20:10:54 GMT, John Harshman
<jharshman.diespamdie@pacbell.net> wrote:
Bob wrote:
yes that is correct. the 'inferior' hutus (inferior in a creationist
sense) murdered the 'superior' tutsis.
The connection to creationism, if any, seems highly indirect.
it was direct enough for gourevitch to mention it in his book
How direct does it have to be to get mentioned in a book? I'm willing to
accept the possibility that believers in the curse of Ham (not
necessarily creationists, you will note, though presumably believers in
a flood) convinced some Tutsis that they were racially superior to the
Hutus for that reason, and that this influenced oppression of Hutus by
Tutsis, which caused resentments that eventually led to the massacre
many years later. But there were many contributing causes of Hutu
resentment, and I see no evidence that creationism was any more than a
very minor and indirect contributor.
The fact that the supposed creationists are the victims (at least in the
latest round) rather than the perpetrators also weakens the usefulness
of this case.
Except as an example of creationists (indirectly inferred creationists)
being racists, to which the whole massacre thing is irrelevant.
.
|
|
|
| User: "Bob" |
|
| Title: Re: Evidence that Darwin was racist? |
24 Jan 2005 09:00:17 PM |
|
|
On Mon, 24 Jan 2005 21:26:07 GMT, John Harshman
<jharshman.diespamdie@pacbell.net> wrote:
Bob wrote:
On Mon, 24 Jan 2005 20:10:54 GMT, John Harshman
<jharshman.diespamdie@pacbell.net> wrote:
Bob wrote:
yes that is correct. the 'inferior' hutus (inferior in a creationist
sense) murdered the 'superior' tutsis.
The connection to creationism, if any, seems highly indirect.
it was direct enough for gourevitch to mention it in his book
How direct does it have to be to get mentioned in a book? I'm willing to
accept the possibility that believers in the curse of Ham (not
necessarily creationists, you will note, though presumably believers in
a flood) convinced some Tutsis that they were racially superior to the
Hutus for that reason, and that this influenced oppression of Hutus by
Tutsis, which caused resentments that eventually led to the massacre
many years later. But there were many contributing causes of Hutu
resentment, and I see no evidence that creationism was any more than a
very minor and indirect contributor.
the question is, why was it mentioned at all? how 'minor' does a minor
effect have to be? the fact is it was a factor. i'm a physical, not a
social scientist. i doubt if there's a meter to measure 'genocide
factor' influences.
gourevitch says it was a factor. therefore creationism was a factor in
the genocide.
and that's pretty much it.
The fact that the supposed creationists are the victims (at least in the
latest round) rather than the perpetrators also weakens the usefulness
of this case.
no moreso than the fact that there were, on occasion, slave riots in
the american south.
---------------------------
to see who "wf3h" is, go to "qrz.com"
and enter 'wf3h' in the field
.
|
|
|
|
|
| User: "Christopher A. Lee" |
|
| Title: Re: Evidence that Darwin was racist? |
24 Jan 2005 06:23:07 PM |
|
|
On Mon, 24 Jan 2005 21:08:00 GMT, (Bob) wrote:
On Mon, 24 Jan 2005 20:10:54 GMT, John Harshman
<jharshman.diespamdie@pacbell.net> wrote:
Bob wrote:
yes that is correct. the 'inferior' hutus (inferior in a creationist
sense) murdered the 'superior' tutsis.
The connection to creationism, if any, seems highly indirect.
it was direct enough for gourevitch to mention it in his book
It is a fairly direct connection, and one made by many US
fundamentalists: the flood is part of creationism, and they believe
that the darker people are the descendents of Ham.
---------------------------
to see who "wf3h" is, go to "qrz.com"
and enter 'wf3h' in the field
.
|
|
|
| User: "Al Klein" |
|
| Title: Re: Evidence that Darwin was racist? |
24 Jan 2005 08:39:23 PM |
|
|
On Mon, 24 Jan 2005 19:23:07 -0500, "Christopher A. Lee"
<calee@optonline.net> said in alt.atheism:
It is a fairly direct connection, and one made by many US
fundamentalists: the flood is part of creationism, and they believe
that the darker people are the descendents of Ham.
But follow their logic:
Light colored blacks are descended from Ham (when being compared to
whites).
Dark colored blacks are descended from Ham (when being compared to
lighter colored blacks).
So whether a particular person is actually descended from Ham is
dependent upon whom he's being compared to?
Oh, this is Christianity and I was expecting sanity.
Sorry.
--
"Men never do evil so completely and cheerfully as when they do it from religious
conviction."
- Blaise Pascal (1623-1662)
(random sig, produced by SigChanger)
rukbat at verizon dot net
.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
| User: "R. Tang" |
|
| Title: Re: Evidence that Darwin was racist? |
17 Jan 2005 04:28:39 PM |
|
|
In article <41ec282d.12062767@usenet.ptd.net>, Bob <wf3h@ptd.net> wrote:
On Mon, 17 Jan 2005 15:46:38 -0500, david ford <dford3@gl.umbc.edu>
wrote:
According to Dawkins, Darwin was racist. See
Dawkins, Richard. 2004. "Dolittle and Darwin" in _Curious Minds: How a
Child Becomes a Scientist_, edited by John Brockman (New York: Pantheon
Books), 236pp., 121-129, 125.
What evidence is there to support Dawkins's claim that Darwin was racist?
racism in darwin?
for racism in creationist literature, one need only look at the essay
written by jefferson davis on how slavery was god's will and blacks
suffered the curse of ham
or the statements of senator james jackson, contemporary of thomas
jefferson on the same subject
or the massacre in rwandwa where the tutsis believed that since they
were lighter skinned than the hutus, on the basis of creationism, they
were superior. and that was in 1994
ford has a jaundiced view of racism, and is an apologist for
contemporary creationist racism
No kidding. Makes me want to say "Why you talking about 'WE',
white boy?"
--
-
-Roger Tang, gwangung@u.washington.edu, Artistic Director PC Theatre
- Editor, Asian American Theatre Revue [NEW URL][Yes, it IS new]
- http://www.aatrevue.com
.
|
|
|
|
|
| User: "Mitchell Coffey" |
|
| Title: Re: Evidence that Darwin was racist? |
18 Jan 2005 01:38:43 AM |
|
|
On Mon, 17 Jan 2005 15:46:38 -0500, david ford <dford3@gl.umbc.edu>
wrote:
According to Dawkins, Darwin was racist. See
Dawkins, Richard. 2004. "Dolittle and Darwin" in _Curious Minds: How a
Child Becomes a Scientist_, edited by John Brockman (New York: Pantheon
Books), 236pp., 121-129, 125.
What evidence is there to support Dawkins's claim that Darwin was racist?
Surely Dawkins cited his evidence. Meanwhile, you're challenged to
name five white people from England in Darwin's time who were not by
modern standards racist.
You'll find in Descent of Man and elsewhere passages that represented
what passed for racial liberalism in 1871 (Note: Darwin used the word
"intimate: in its 19th century sense of "Close in friendship or
acquaintance"[1823]):
"Although the existing races of man differ in many respects, as
in colour, hair, shape of skull, proportions of the body, &c.,
yet if their whole structure be taken into consideration they are
found to resemble each other closely in a multitude of points.
Many of these are of so unimportant or of so singular a nature,
that it is extremely improbable that they should have been
independently acquired by aboriginally distinct species or races.
The same remark holds good with equal or greater force with
respect to the numerous points of mental similarity between the
most distinct races of man. The American aborigines, Negroes and
Europeans are as different from each other in mind as any three
races that can be named; yet I was incessantly struck, whilst
living with the Feugians on board the Beagle, with the many
little traits of character, shewing how similar their minds were
to ours; and so it was with a full-blooded negro with whom I
happened once to be intimate."
- Descent of Man, chpt 1, 1871.
Darwin's anti-slavery statements are legion - as one would expect from
a man born into one of the leading anti-slavery families in England.
Charles Darwin on Slavery:
From Descent of Man, Chapter 4, Section 2:
"Slavery, although in some ways beneficial during ancient times,[See
Mr. Bagehot, 'Physics and Politics,' 1872, p. 72.] is a great crime;
yet it was not so regarded until quite recently, even by the most
civilised 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. "
From the Voyage of the Beagle, Chapter 3:
"While staying at this estate, I was very nearly being an eye-witness
to one of those atrocious acts which can only take place in a slave
country. Owing to a quarrel and a lawsuit, the owner was on the point
of taking all the women and children from the male slaves, and selling
them separately at the public auction at Rio. Interest, and not any
feeling of compassion, prevented this act. Indeed, I do not believe
the inhumanity of separating thirty families, who had lived together
for many years, even occurred to the owner. Yet I will pledge myself,
that in humanity and good feeling he was superior to the common run of
men. It may be said there exists no limit to the blindness of interest
and selfish habit. I may mention one very trifling anecdote, which at
the time struck me more forcibly than any story of cruelty. I was
crossing a ferry with a negro, who was uncommonly stupid. In
endeavouring to make him understand, I talked loud, and made signs, in
doing which I passed my hand near his face. He, I suppose, thought I
was in a passion, and was going to strike him; for instantly, with a
frightened look and half-shut eyes, he dropped his hands. I shall
never forget my feelings of surprise, disgust, and shame, at seeing a
great powerful man afraid even to ward off a blow, directed, as he
thought, at his face. This man had been trained to a degradation lower
than the slavery of the most helpless animal."
From the Voyage of the Beagle, Chapter 21:
"On the 19th of August we finally left the shores of Brazil. I thank
God, I shall never again visit a slave-country. To this day, if I hear
a distant scream, it recalls with painful vividness my feelings, when
passing a house near Pernambuco, I heard the most pitiable moans, and
could not but suspect that some poor slave was being tortured, yet
knew that I was as powerless as a child even to remonstrate. I
suspected that these moans were from a tortured slave, for I was told
that this was the case in another instance. Near Rio de Janeiro I
lived opposite to an old lady, who kept screws to crush the fingers of
her female slaves. I have staid in a house where a young household
mulatto, daily and hourly, was reviled, beaten, and persecuted enough
to break the spirit of the lowest animal. I have seen a little boy,
six or seven years old, struck thrice with a horse-whip (before I
could interfere) on his naked head, for having handed me a glass of
water not quite clean; I saw his father tremble at a mere glance from
his master's eye. These latter cruelties were witnessed by me in a
Spanish colony, in which it has always been said, that slaves are
better treated than by the Portuguese, English, or other European
nations. I have seen at Rio de Janeiro a powerful negro afraid to ward
off a blow directed, as he thought, at his face. I was present when a
kind-hearted man was on the point of separating forever the men,
women, and little children of a large number of families who had long
lived together. I will not even allude to the many heart- sickening
atrocities which I authentically heard of;ænor would I have mentioned
the above revolting details, had I not met with several people, so
blinded by the constitutional gaiety of the negro as to speak of
slavery as a tolerable evil. Such people have generally visited at the
houses of the upper classes, where the domestic slaves are usually
well treated; and they have not, like myself, lived amongst the lower
classes. Such inquirers will ask slaves about their condition; they
forget that the slave must indeed be dull, who does not calculate on
the chance of his answer reaching his master's ears.
"It is argued that self-interest will prevent excessive cruelty; as if
self- interest protected our domestic animals, which are far less
likely than degraded slaves, to stir up the rage of their savage
masters. It is an argument long since protested against with noble
feeling, and strikingly exemplified, by the ever-illustrious
Humboldt. It is often attempted to palliate slavery by comparing the
state of slaves with our poorer countrymen: if the misery of our poor
be caused not by the laws of nature, but by our institutions, great is
our sin; but how this bears on slavery, I cannot see; as well might
the use of the thumb-screw be defended in one land, by showing that
men in another land suffered from some dreadful disease. Those who
look tenderly at the slave owner, and with a cold heart at the slave,
never seem to put themselves into the position of the latter; what a
cheerless prospect, with not even a hope of change! picture to
yourself the chance, ever hanging over you, of your wife and your
little children - those objects which nature urges even the slave to
call his own - being torn from you and sold like beasts to the first
bidder! And these deeds are done and palliated by men, who profess to
love their neighbours as themselves, who believe in God, and pray that
his Will be done on earth! It makes one's blood boil, yet heart
tremble, to think that we Englishmen and our American descendants,
with their boastful cry of liberty, have been and are so guilty: but
it is a consolation to reflect, that we at least have made a greater
sacrifice, than ever made by any nation, to expiate our sin."
.
|
|
|
|
| User: "Mitchell Coffey" |
|
| Title: Re: Evidence that Darwin was racist? |
18 Jan 2005 01:13:41 AM |
|
|
On Mon, 17 Jan 2005 15:46:38 -0500, david ford <dford3@gl.umbc.edu>
wrote:
According to Dawkins, Darwin was racist. See
Dawkins, Richard. 2004. "Dolittle and Darwin" in _Curious Minds: How a
Child Becomes a Scientist_, edited by John Brockman (New York: Pantheon
Books), 236pp., 121-129, 125.
What evidence is there to support Dawkins's claim that Darwin was racist?
What are the names of five members of your particular Christian
Denomination who were adults in the 1860s who were not racist? What
is your evidence that they were not racist?
Mitchell Coffey
.
|
|
|
|
| User: "TCS" |
|
| Title: Re: Evidence that Darwin was racist? |
17 Jan 2005 03:18:08 PM |
|
|
On Mon, 17 Jan 2005 15:46:38 -0500, david ford <dford3@gl.umbc.edu> wrote:
According to Dawkins, Darwin was racist. See
Dawkins, Richard. 2004. "Dolittle and Darwin" in _Curious Minds: How a
Child Becomes a Scientist_, edited by John Brockman (New York: Pantheon
Books), 236pp., 121-129, 125.
What evidence is there to support Dawkins's claim that Darwin was racist?
who cares? He was also a christian, but that doesn't change the fact
that his work was brilliant and alowed biological science to move
past superstitious drivel.
.
|
|
|
| User: "Yang, AthD h.c, Kicking AWOLs Cocaine Snorting Ass" |
|
| Title: Re: Evidence that Darwin was racist? |
17 Jan 2005 04:33:39 PM |
|
|
On Mon, 17 Jan 2005 15:18:08 -0600, TCS
<The-Central-Scrutinizer@p.o.b.o.x.com> wrote:
On Mon, 17 Jan 2005 15:46:38 -0500, david ford <dford3@gl.umbc.edu> wrote:
According to Dawkins, Darwin was racist. See
Dawkins, Richard. 2004. "Dolittle and Darwin" in _Curious Minds: How a
Child Becomes a Scientist_, edited by John Brockman (New York: Pantheon
Books), 236pp., 121-129, 125.
What evidence is there to support Dawkins's claim that Darwin was racist?
who cares? He was also a christian, but that doesn't change the fact
that his work was brilliant and alowed biological science to move
past superstitious drivel.
Don't buy into Creationist propaganda. Dawrin became an agnostic after
this votage on the Beagle. He was against slavery, unlike the
predeccessors of the Creationists Christians. And he was far less
racists than the Christians of his day- In the "Originas of Species"
he wrote that from his own personal observaions, Blacks are just as
smart as the Europeans.
-----
Yang
a.a. #28
AthD (h.c.) conferred by the regents of the LCL
a.a. pastor #-273.15, the most frigid church of Celcius nee Kelvin
EAC Econometric Forecast and Sorcery Division
Proudly plonked by Lani Girl and Crazyalec (aka aka Yang's little poltregeist *****)
The Bush 'balanced' budget: 1.6 trillion and worsening
The Bush 'economic' policy: 12 million FEWER jobs than Clinton and counting
The Bush Iraq lie: -1364 GIs, one friend's co-worker's son and mounting
Having Bush ***** up my country: Worthless
.
|
|
|
| User: "Walter Bushell" |
|
| Title: Re: Evidence that Darwin was racist? |
19 Jan 2005 10:54:21 AM |
|
|
In article <34fou0to292ht1p24n34gl2kfplsqr77ha@4ax.com>,
"Yang, AthD (h.c), Kicking AWOL's Cocaine Snorting *****"
<eacmole@/*AWOLBUSH*/mail.com> wrote:
<snip>
Don't buy into Creationist propaganda. Dawrin became an agnostic after
this votage on the Beagle. He was against slavery, unlike the
predeccessors of the Creationists Christians. And he was far less
racists than the Christians of his day- In the "Originas of Species"
he wrote that from his own personal observaions, Blacks are just as
smart as the Europeans.
Aren't Christians agnostic by definition, because faith is necessary to
belief is the orthodox position.
--
Guns don't kill people; automobiles kill people.
.
|
|
|
| User: "Fencingsax" |
|
| Title: Re: Evidence that Darwin was racist? |
19 Jan 2005 11:18:04 AM |
|
|
Walter Bushell wrote:
In article <34fou0to292ht1p24n34gl2kfplsqr77ha@4ax.com>,
"Yang, AthD (h.c), Kicking AWOL's Cocaine Snorting *****"
<eacmole@/*AWOLBUSH*/mail.com> wrote:
<snip>
Don't buy into Creationist propaganda. Dawrin became an agnostic
after
this votage on the Beagle. He was against slavery, unlike the
predeccessors of the Creationists Christians. And he was far less
racists than the Christians of his day- In the "Originas of
Species"
he wrote that from his own personal observaions, Blacks are just as
smart as the Europeans.
Aren't Christians agnostic by definition, because faith is necessary
to
belief is the orthodox position.
What the Hells is wrong with you? Do you know what agnosticism is?
Anyone who is of some religion or other, no matter what can't be
agnostic. By definition.
--
Guns don't kill people; automobiles kill people.
.
|
|
|
| User: "Walter Bushell" |
|
| Title: Re: Evidence that Darwin was racist? |
19 Jan 2005 12:57:19 PM |
|
|
In article <1106155084.515505.263500@z14g2000cwz.googlegroups.com>,
"Fencingsax" <Christocbd@gmail.com> wrote:
Walter Bushell wrote:
In article <34fou0to292ht1p24n34gl2kfplsqr77ha@4ax.com>,
"Yang, AthD (h.c), Kicking AWOL's Cocaine Snorting *****"
<eacmole@/*AWOLBUSH*/mail.com> wrote:
<snip>
Don't buy into Creationist propaganda. Dawrin became an agnostic
after
this votage on the Beagle. He was against slavery, unlike the
predeccessors of the Creationists Christians. And he was far less
racists than the Christians of his day- In the "Originas of
Species"
he wrote that from his own personal observaions, Blacks are just as
smart as the Europeans.
Aren't Christians agnostic by definition, because faith is necessary
to
belief is the orthodox position.
What the Hells is wrong with you? Do you know what agnosticism is?
Anyone who is of some religion or other, no matter what can't be
agnostic. By definition.
--
Guns don't kill people; automobiles kill people.
I thought agnosticism was the position was that it was impossible to
tell, which makes belief or disbelief a matter of personal choice.
--
Guns don't kill people; automobiles kill people.
.
|
|
|
| User: "Al Klein" |
|
| Title: Re: Evidence that Darwin was racist? |
20 Jan 2005 02:52:37 AM |
|
|
On Wed, 19 Jan 2005 13:57:19 -0500, Walter Bushell <proto@panix.com>
said in alt.atheism:
I thought agnosticism was the position was that it was impossible to
tell
No, it's the position that if you have no evidence you won't make any
assertions.
--
The most curious social convention of the great age in which we live is the
one to the effect that religious opinions should be respected.
-- H. L. Mencken
(random sig, produced by SigChanger)
rukbat at verizon dot net
.
|
|
|
|
|
| User: "Steve Mading" |
|
| Title: Re: Evidence that Darwin was racist? |
19 Jan 2005 01:22:29 PM |
|
|
On 19 Jan 2005 09:18:04 -0800,
Fencingsax <Christocbd@gmail.com> wrote:
Walter Bushell wrote:
In article <34fou0to292ht1p24n34gl2kfplsqr77ha@4ax.com>,
"Yang, AthD (h.c), Kicking AWOL's Cocaine Snorting *****"
<eacmole@/*AWOLBUSH*/mail.com> wrote:
<snip>
Don't buy into Creationist propaganda. Dawrin became an agnostic
after
this votage on the Beagle. He was against slavery, unlike the
predeccessors of the Creationists Christians. And he was far less
racists than the Christians of his day- In the "Originas of
Species"
he wrote that from his own personal observaions, Blacks are just as
smart as the Europeans.
Aren't Christians agnostic by definition, because faith is necessary
to
belief is the orthodox position.
What the Hells is wrong with you? Do you know what agnosticism is?
Anyone who is of some religion or other, no matter what can't be
agnostic. By definition.
False. For two reasons:
1 - "religion" does not have to equal "god". Some religions don't
say anything about gods one way or another, like Buddhism for example.
2 - Agnosticism has two different defintiions - the original definition,
and the colloquial layman's definition that mutated from it. By the
original definition, it only means you say you don't know if god
exists or not. You could still believe it while admitting that said
belief isn't strong enough to count as "knowing", and that would still
leave you open to being an agnostic. But there has been a mutated
version of that term that has now come to mean "sitting on the fence,
being unsure which way to believe", and by THAT definition I could see
the point you are trying to make, but that is not the sole definition,
and it's not even the more technically correct one.
.
|
|
|
| User: "Al Klein" |
|
| Title: Re: Evidence that Darwin was racist? |
20 Jan 2005 02:53:54 AM |
|
|
On Wed, 19 Jan 2005 19:22:29 +0000 (UTC),
madings@lobster.bmrb.wisc.edu (Steve Mading) said in alt.atheism:
1 - "religion" does not have to equal "god". Some religions don't
say anything about gods one way or another, like Buddhism for example.
Those sects of Buddhism that don't believe in any supernatural being
aren't religions. Not all belief systems are religions.
--
"The whole problem with the world is that fools and fanatics are always so certain of
themselves, but wiser people so full of doubts."
- Bertrand Russell
(random sig, produced by SigChanger)
rukbat at verizon dot net
.
|
|
|
| User: "Steve Mading" |
|
| Title: Re: Evidence that Darwin was racist? |
23 Jan 2005 03:37:51 PM |
|
|
On Thu, 20 Jan 2005 08:53:54 GMT, Al Klein <rukbat@pern.invalid> wrote:
On Wed, 19 Jan 2005 19:22:29 +0000 (UTC),
madings@lobster.bmrb.wisc.edu (Steve Mading) said in alt.atheism:
1 - "religion" does not have to equal "god". Some religions don't
say anything about gods one way or another, like Buddhism for example.
Those sects of Buddhism that don't believe in any supernatural being
aren't religions. Not all belief systems are religions.
I apologise for falsely assuming you are using English.
.
|
|
|
| User: "Al Klein" |
|
| Title: Re: Evidence that Darwin was racist? |
23 Jan 2005 07:05:11 PM |
|
|
On Sun, 23 Jan 2005 21:37:51 +0000 (UTC),
madings@lobster.bmrb.wisc.edu (Steve Mading) said in alt.atheism:
On Thu, 20 Jan 2005 08:53:54 GMT, Al Klein <rukbat@pern.invalid> wrote:
On Wed, 19 Jan 2005 19:22:29 +0000 (UTC),
madings@lobster.bmrb.wisc.edu (Steve Mading) said in alt.atheism:
1 - "religion" does not have to equal "god". Some religions don't
say anything about gods one way or another, like Buddhism for example.
Those sects of Buddhism that don't believe in any supernatural being
aren't religions. Not all belief systems are religions.
I apologise for falsely assuming you are using English.
No, I was merely using current usage, which defines 'religion' as
'belief in a supernatural creator of the universe'. Sorry if the
actual meanings of words confuses you.
--
"A truly unselfish act would be a Christian volunteering to have his soul take your
soul's place in hell, so yours could go to Heaven. Don't hold your breath."
- John Popelish
(random sig, produced by SigChanger)
rukbat at verizon dot net
.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Related Articles |
|
|
