Re: Social Darwinism; was: So Long Judge Moore, We'll Miss You

ambrose searle wrote:
> Carol Lee Smith <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message news:<[EMAIL PROTECTED]>...
> 
>>On Tue, 25 Nov 2003, ambrose searle responded to someone's whose identity
>>he obliterated.
>>
>>
>>>>Special Pleading. You claimed he *promoted* "Social Darwinism". Where 
>>>>does he state we should apply it?
>>
>> 
>>
>>>For starters, in a letter to Heinrich Fick, 1872: see--
>>
>> 
>>
>>>Richard Weikart, "A Recently Discovered Darwin Letter on Social
>>>Darwinism," Isis 86 (1995): 609-611.
>>
>> 
>>
>>>By and large, however, Darwin felt that Social Darwinism just is. 
>>
>> 
>>
>>>He differentiated between races and societies as superior and inferior
>>>based on their level of evolutionary development.
>>
>>We have a much different way of looking at "races and societies" in our
>>time.  There is much scholarship questioning whether there is such a thing
>>as what is commonly thought of as "race."
> 
> 
> My claims had nothing to do with modern scientific opinion. My claim
> had to do with the actual ideas that Charles Darwin promoted.
> 
> Charles Darwin not only believed in differentiation of races (see
> http://www.infidels.org/library/historical/charles_darwin/descent_of_man/chapter_07.html
> "ON THE RACES OF MAN"), but he clearly believed that the pure white
> race was "superior" to a mixture of white and black--
> 
> "The inferior vitality of mulattoes is spoken of in a trustworthy
> work*(5) as a well-known phenomenon; and this, although a different
> consideration from their lessened fertility, may perhaps be advanced
> as a proof of the specific distinctness of the parent races."
> 
> cited above.

A notion which he had from breeding of domestic animals, and is no 
longer commonly accepted. At his time it was a reasonable conclusion.

Also, if he believed "interbreeding" was disfavorable, that's not the 
same as saying he saw one race superior in every aspect to another, just 
like this isn't the case in animal breeding.

>>Darwin was a man of his time.
> 
> 
> Yes he was. His thinking has become outmoded.

His scientific reasoning on this point is now understood to be flawed, 
owed to some facts he was unaware of (e.g. genetics).

>>>From the Editor's statements:
> 
> 
> I don't give a crap about the "editor's opinion." What matters is what
> Darwin said and wrote.
> 
> 
>> >This historical and critical synthesis of Darwinism and evolutionary
>> >theory has been conducted in order to combat the endless distortions
>> >of Darwin's ideas. Henceforth, the demonstration has been made that:
>> > - Darwin is not the father of modern anti-equalitarian theories, -
> 
> 
> Of course he is not. Anti-equalitarianism existed long before Darwin.
> 
> 
>> > Darwin is the founder neither of negative eugenics nor of dogmas of
>> > elimination,
> 
> 
> Of course not. Even the Ancient Hebrews promoted "negative eugenics"
> long before Darwin.

And Darwin did not *promote* them. You failed to stuff your claim with 
evidence. In the beginning, you were mistaken. Now that you keep 
repeating your claim without evidence, you're just a liar.

>> > - Darwin is not the justifier of Victorian Imperialism,
> 
> 
> He provided a justification for the Imperialism of Britain pertaining
> to colonization of America. He said it was a great advancement:
> 
> "There is apparently much truth in the belief that the wonderful
> progress of the United States, as well as the character of the people,
> are the results of
> natural selection; for the more energetic, restless, and courageous
> men from all parts of Europe have emigrated during the last ten or
> twelve generations to that great country, and have there succeeded
> best.* Looking to the distant future, I do not think that the Rev. Mr.
> Zincke takes an exaggerated view when he says:*(2) "All other series
> of events- as that which resulted in the culture of mind in Greece,
> and that which resulted in the empire of Rome- only appear to have
> purpose and value when viewed in connection with, or rather as
> subsidiary to... the great stream of Anglo-Saxon emigration to the
> west." Obscure as is the problem of the advance of civilisation, we
> can at least see that a nation which produced during a lengthened
> period the greatest number of highly intellectual, energetic, brave,
> patriotic, and benevolent men, would generally prevail over less
> favoured nations."

The North American natives were seen at the time as a great number of 
uncivilized, mutually hostile tribes with an inferior culture. IOW, this 
opinion was equally not his own. All of his sources agreed that they 
deserved their face (including by actions! Atrocities against whites 
were overinflated, and atrocities against Native Americans were swept 
under the rug).

The events can *still* be understood as an evolutionary process, though 
now more in the context of cultural memes than inherited traits.

>> > - Darwin is not responsible for "Social Darwinism". 
> 
> 
> Of course, not solely responsible. There were many others who pushed
> it along. But Darwin was a principal proponent of it.
> 
> Searle