maff91@yahoo.com (maff) wrote in message news:<18510aff.0311250306.62599063@posting.google.com>...

t_p_hamilton@yahoo.com (Tracy Hamilton) wrote in message news:<d85a1e9.0311241023.1992265c@posting.google.com>...

Carol Lee Smith <human@csd.uwm.edu> wrote in message news:<Pine.OSF.3.96.1031123233817.17336k-100000@alpha1.csd.uwm.edu>...

On 23 Nov 2003, ambrose searle wrote:

To be Darwin's Theory of Social Evolution, DARWIN HIMSELF had to
propose it.

What publication did Darwin do this in?

No such thing. It's called Social Darwinism, but it's a bastardization of
Darwin's ideas in natural history in to social theory. It doesn't work
there. Social Darwinism has nothing really to do with Darwin,

Wrong. Dead Wrong.

I think you are the one who is dead wrong.

http://human-nature.com/rmyoung/papers/paper60h.html
http://www.arn.org/docs/odesign/od172/ls172.htm
http://www.gennet.org/metro15.htm
http://www.firstthings.com/ftissues/ft0111/opinion/wiker.html
http://www.toolan.com/hitler/surplus.html#social

But most of all, see
http://www.infidels.org/library/historical/charles_darwin/descent_of_man/chapter_05.html

Again, I reiterate: Darwin promoted SOCIAL DARWINISM. That's the fact.

I don't think so.

It can't get any clearer--

"With savages, the weak in body or mind are soon eliminated; and those
that survive commonly exhibit a vigorous state of health. We civilised
men, on the other hand, do our utmost to check the process of
elimination; we build asylums for the imbecile, the maimed, and the
sick; we institute poor-laws; and our medical men exert their utmost
skill to save the life of every one to the last moment. There is
reason to believe that vaccination has preserved thousands, who from a
weak constitution would formerly have succumbed to small-pox. Thus the
weak members of civilised societies propagate their kind. No one who
has attended to the breeding of domestic animals will doubt that this
must be highly injurious to the race of man. It is surprising how soon
a want of care, or care wrongly directed, leads to the degeneration of
a domestic race; but excepting in the case of man himself, hardly any
one is so ignorant as to allow his worst animals to breed."

http://www.infidels.org/library/historical/charles_darwin/descent_of_man/chapter_05.html

Thanks for the reference, which proves you are full of *****.
Right after the quoted text (skipping 2 footnotes) is:

"The aid which we feel impelled to give to the helpless is mainly
an incidental result of the instinct of sympathy, which was originally
acquired as part of the social instincts, but subsequently rendered,
in the manner previously indicated, more tender and more widely
diffused. Nor could we check our sympathy, even at the urging of
hard reason, without deterioration in the noblest part of our
nature."

In other words we should not engage in what is called Social Darwinism,
if what you quoted was Social Darwinism. It can't get any clearer
than that, indeed!

Where does Darwin state that we "shouldn't" do anything?

Darwin wasn't stating what we "should" or "shouldn't" do. He was
stating that there are NOBLE "moral" instincts that evolved from
natural selection, that include the unfortunate side-effect
("incidental") instinct called "sympathy," which cannot be repressed.
But, like Nietzsche and Hitler, Darwin considered it an UNFORTUNATE
and DEGENERATING instinct:

"We civilised men, on the other hand, do our utmost to check the
process of elimination; we build asylums for the imbecile, the maimed,
and the sick; we institute poor-laws; and our medical men exert their
utmost skill to save the life of every one to the last moment... It is
surprising how soon a want of care, or care wrongly directed, leads to
the degeneration of a domestic race; but excepting in the case of man
himself, hardly any one is so ignorant as to allow his worst animals
to breed."

Hitler's project was simply to follow Nietzsche (the atheist) and do
the best we can to get beyond "morality" (good and evil) and simply
enhance the process of Darwinian evolution by not giving in to the
"degenerative" (Darwin's word) instinct of sympathy.

This is no secret interpretation.

Just read it.

http://www.infidels.org/library/historical/charles_darwin/descent_of_man/chapter_05.html

and

http://human-nature.com/rmyoung/papers/paper60h.html

But Bible Belt fundamentalists, Confederates and the Klan didn't
beleive in Darwin or evolution. THey wre murdering and torturing
people even before Darwin.

So what? How does that change the fact that Darwin was also a racist?