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

> >> > 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. 
> 
> That is entirely true. Your claim seems to have alot to do with your 
> personal ignorance, hatred and fear. 

My claim above "Darwin differentiated between races and societies as
superior and inferior based on their level of evolutionary
development" is not a claim pertinent to "modern scientific opinion."
It is, more properly, a historical claim that is proven either true or
false based on the historical record.

The record is clear:

http://teachers.sduhsd.k12.ca.us/gstimson/socialdarwin.htm

> > "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." 
> 
> Perhaps you should read the entire chapter. Darwin does not even reach the
> same level of bigotry that the rest of European society reached

What a piece of despicable logic. Do you also justify the activity of
Tim McVeigh on the grounds that it "didn't even reach the level of
other terrorists of his day such as Bin Laden"?

> at the
> time, and the sentence you cited above barely indicates any racism at all.

Really? I'll bet if you refuse to hire a mullato on the grounds of the
"trustworthy" scientific work Darwin alludes to which proves that they
are inferior in vitality, you will not only be called a racist, you
would be successfully sued rather rapidly as a result of such crass
racism.

To say "yeah, but there were a lot of worse racists in 1871" doesn't
change the fact that Darwin was racist. To say that there were a lot
of worse killers in 1895 than Lizzie Borden doesn't offer a legitimate
excuse for her axe murdering.

> Especially when taken in full context. The entire chapter is an attempt to
> tell if the various races are distinct species or not. And what Darwin
> really seems to conclude, is that they are not.

They may not be different species, but Darwin clearly categorizes them
into the lower and the higher races, the inferior and the superior
races.

That is classic racism.

> >> From the Editor's statements: 
> > 
> > I don't give a crap about the "editor's opinion." What matters is what 
> > Darwin said and wrote. 
> 
> And you are doing a very poor job of representing them.

I don't need to represent them. The words themselves are plain enough:

http://teachers.sduhsd.k12.ca.us/gstimson/socialdarwin.htm

> I find it
> interesting that your prejudices have led you to reach so far in your
> attempts to discredit Darwin, 

On the contrary, the intimate attachment that Darwinists have to their
guru has led them to deny that Darwin himself used his "science" to
justify the differentiation of races. It is those prejudices that have
led so many in this thread to attempt to make untenable, even
ridiculous, denials.

> Unfortunately for you, scientific theories are judged on how well they
> work, not on the beliefs, prejudices, or other behaviors of the person who
> founded them. Darwin could have been Catholic priest, or even a pastor in
> the Southern Baptist Convention, and this would in no way affect the
> validity of his theories. 

Or the invalidity of them.

Social Darwinism is a crock. Furthermore, it is highly dangerous.

Searle