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

On Sat, 29 Nov 2003 00:41:21 +0000 (UTC), [EMAIL PROTECTED] (ambrose
searle) wrote:


>> >> The quote you cite is from a chapter in which Darwin is discussing whether
>> >> the "races" of humans are, in fact, different species and is citing to the
>> >> scientific criteria of his day (pre-genetics) to determine if "two or more
>> >> allied forms ought to be ranked as species or varieties" (p. 166). 
>> >
>> >Okay. Your point is....?
>> 
>> That you or the people you copied this mindlessly from dishonestly or
>> stupidly manipulated a quote out of context to imply it said something it
>> didn't. 
>
>The quote EXPLICITLY said that Darwin believed, on the grounds of a
>trustworthy work, inter alia, that mulattoes suffer from inferior
>vitality.

No, the quote says: "The inferior vitality of mulattoes is *spoken of* in a
trustworthy work as a well-known phenomenon . . . ".  The original wording
is hardly a ringing endorsement ("otherwise trustworthy" is pregnant and,
by Victorian standards, he is practically calling it flat-out wrong).  But,
in any case, he has already given *contrary* evidence, including from his
great good friend, mentor and renowned scientist, Charles Lyell, putting
the whole question at issue.  

I suppose you can be forgiven not understanding Victorian usage in the
first place but once you have had it explained, the failure to acknowledge
the error shows either that you are outright dishonest or incredibly
stupid. 

>
>The larger point is neither here nor there, but only an attempt to
>divert from the bottom line: Darwin was a racist, and this isn't the
>only passage in his writings which can be put forth to demonstrate
>this undeniable truth.

<Snicker>  "I ain't wrong . . . but even if I am it doesn't matter. " 

And this is just another example of your confused claims.  Most everyone
here has admitted that Darwin was a racist *by* *today's* *standards*.  So
were most European clergymen and clerks, presidents and Popes, doctors and
doyens, all of whom, each in their own ways, contributed to the horrors of
the 20th Century.  To single out one man or one idea is cardboard history
of the worst sort.

That *still* has nothing to do with your "argument" that Darwin "promoted"
Social Darwinism but you *nevertheless* brought it up, with no other
apparent intent than to somehow blacken his name.  Unfortunately for you,
you are too incompetent to do even *that* well.  The other parts of your
"presentation", taking bits out of a book length discussion and putting
your own spin on it, are done no better than what you did here.

>
>> >Okay, your point is...?
>> 
>> That he isn't talking about "superiority" of one race over that of another
>> but an issue of taxonomic classification.
>
>I can concede that chap. 7 of Descent is largely a discussion of the
>matter you claim; however, when, in that discussion, he mentions that
>mulattoes are inferior in their physical constitution, he is
>expressing a sentiment that we normally call "racism."

What those who *don't* understand what he is saying call "racism" . . .  

Hasn't anyone told you that repeating ignorance is not the best rhetorical
strategy?

The fact that you cannot find examples of where Darwin was really "racist"
(to our understanding) and have to pathetically manufacture one, speaks
loudly of your lack of knowledge of the subject and your nonexistent skills
as a scholar.

>
>Again, I reiterate my claim. Try refusing to hire someone who is a
>mulatto on the grounds of the "trustworthy work" that Darwin cites as
>an authority who says that mulattoes are of inferior constitution...
>and I assure you that you will be successfully sued for racist
>employment practices.

Again you are confusing historical contexts.  Darwin doesn't live in the
21st Century.

More importantly, you are again misrepresenting what Darwin said and still
do not understand the issue he was discussing (or are feigning ignorance
out of justified embarrassment).  

He wasn't talking about their "constitution" or their "value as human
beings" or anything else.  He was speaking *solely* of their *fertility*.
In case you are so completely ignorant, one of the ways of determining
whether particular plants and animals are  merely varieties of the same
species or completely separate species is whether they can 1) produce
offspring at all and how well and, if so, 2) whether those offspring are
fertile.  

>
>> >No, really, the evidence known at the time??? You mean he isn't given
>> >the evidence known in the year 2146? Surprise surprise!!
>> 
>> Why am I not surprised that a little thing like "historical context" means
>> nothing to you.
>
>It means everything. That's why it is meaningless to point out the
>obvious. 

Then why, as above, do you keep trying to apply 21st Century standards to
Darwin?

What is obvious is that you didn't understand that which you alleged you
had read carefully, calling into question why anyone should listen to the
rest of your screed.  Either that, or you are being deliberately dishonest,
calling into question why anyone should do more than note that your lips
are moving.  

>To say "Darwin was writing during his own lifetime" is a
>tautology; it's useless. To say that Darwin was simply reflecting the
>beliefs of his time is to miss the point the Darwin was arguing racist
>views, not on the same grounds that most others had done so up to that
>point, but upon grounds that Darwin believed to be PURELY
>SCIENTIFIC... this made them so much more dangerous.

The problem is that you neither understand the science nor the way Darwin
expressed himself.  You have no way of judging, historically, what danger
Darwin posed or what damage he or any other scientist might have done,
since you have no context.  In fact, no one needed Darwin to justify
perpetuating cruelty and injustice on others, as is demonstrated by the
fact that so few people understood what he said, then or now . . . *you*
among the foremost.

>
>> >What the hell is your point?
>> 
>> That you or the people you copied this mindlessly from dishonestly or
>> stupidly manipulated a quote out of context to imply it said something it
>> didn't. 
>
>The passage says that Darwin conceded the point of B.A. Gould that
>mulattoes are of "inferior vitality."

You are misrepresenting/misunderstanding what he said again.  He was
speaking of the taxonomically significant characteristic of *fertility*
among offspring of breeding varieties.

>
>> >Okay. He was summarizing the current thought of the day... what else
>> >should he be expected to do? But when he talks of the "inferiority of
>> >mullatoes" he is clearly expressing his agreement with that
>> >"scientific" opinion.
>> 
>> So, when Darwin gives *two* sides to an argument, as Darwin does here, that
>> means he agrees with *both* of them?  Thanks for saving me the trouble of
>> wondering if your arguments were the least bit well-considered.  
>
>Let's consider whether Darwin is giving "two sides" of the inferiority
>of the mulatto or of the question about whether races are different
>species:
>
>Darwin wants to know whether two humans may be from different
>"species," and he uses, as an example, the mulatto.

No again.  You are not getting it.  The mulatto is not "an example" of a
species, a mulatto is the offspring of individuals who *may* come from
different species.  

>
>"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."
>
>The next thing he says is the other side of the question:
>
>"No doubt both animal and vegetable hybrids, when produced from
>extremely distinct species, are liable to premature death; but the
>parents of mulattoes cannot be put under the category of extremely
>distinct species."

No, here he is ruling out the possibility that any human varieties come
from widely divergent, *distantly related* species, on the grounds that,
when (in rare cases) such crossbreeding results in offspring at all, they
usually die at birth or shortly after.  

>
>Note that he doesn't state that B.A. Gould's observation about the
>inferiority of mulattoes is wrong; 

Again, he is only speaking about fertility, not some general "inferiority",
and he *does* give counter-evidence to be considered. 

>he only suggests that it is no
>proof that the parents are from different species.

But that is *all* he is discussing: whether there are different species of
humans.  Of course that is all he says!

It is hard to see how your constant repetition of this error is anything
but the result of the worst sort of ideological blindness, stupidity or
downright dishonesty. 

>
>As a matter of fact, his concession that hybrids tend to have
>premature deaths is put forth as his confirmation that B.A. Gould's
>view was correct.

You really *can't* read for comprehension, can you?  Let me repeat it:

Darwin says: "hybrids, when produced from *extremely distinct* species, are
liable to premature death; but the parents of mulattoes cannot be put under
the category of extremely distinct species" [Emphasis mine] (p. 171).  

In other words, human mulattos  *can't* be from widely divergent species
*because* they *don't* die prematurely.  Which is the *exact* opposite of
what you say he said.

>
>> >> fertility among
>> >> varieties, as it applies to humans and is being careful to give *both*
>> >> sides of the argument.  The bit you quote is a citation to a work
>> >> ('Military and Anthropolog. Statistics of American Soldiers,' by B. A.
>> >> Gould, 1869, p. 319), that is *not* his own, as constituting one of the
>> >> arguments on the "different species" side.  To then attribute those beliefs
>> >> to Darwin himself is the defining characteristic of dishonest quote mining.
>> >
>> >Darwin didn't invent racism. You argue against a ghost. 
>> 
>> The only dead thing here is your argument.  Darwin's discussion had nothing
>> to do with the superiority of one race or the other, just whether they were
>> one species taxonomically or not. 
>
>The chapter does not aim to prove the inferiority of any race, but it
>does include an incidental passage in which Darwin clearly states that
>mulattoes are inferior. Why can't you admit what is right in front of
>you?

Because I can read . . . and now I know you can't.  

Why should I take your incorrect interpretation for this (or, for that
matter, anything else, now that you have demonstrated an inability to
follow along with what Darwin says clearly)? 

>
>> >I have never
>> >argued that Darwin was the inventor of the theory that mullatoes are
>> >inferior. 
>> 
>> The phrase is "inferior vitality", which is 19th Century speak for
>> *fertility*.  You know, *sperm count* and the like. 
>
>It refers to a state of physical constitution that prevents them from
>preserving their genepool.
>
>For Darwin, Mulattoes suffered from an inferior such condition.

So, now you are channeling Darwin?  You can read his mind when his clear
words refute your statements?  

Again, you are misrepresenting him.  He is speaking solely of fertility and
what light it may shed on the taxonomic question.  He does not find
convincing evidence that the reported *low* (not absent) fertility of
mulattos is, in fact, correct.  He does not discuss anything about
mulattos' ability to respond to selective pressures, which he would
obviously do, given it was the centerpiece of his theory, if he was, in
fact, saying what you say he is.  Your inability to grasp this point or
even follow along with the argument of the book shows why your opinion is
worthless.

And, BTW, it is ludicrous to attribute an idea like a "genepool" to Darwin.

>
>> >What I said is that he considered it a scientific truth, and
>> >he promoted it himself.
>> 
>> You keep using the word "promote".  I'd like to know what *you* mean by it.
>
>To be a proponent of.

<Gawfaw>  Now *there* is an example of clear thinking if I ever saw one!
But why not?  After all, there is nothing to get in the way of it getting
out of your head.

Now, what distinguishes a "proponent" from someone being an "investigator"
or a "questioner" or anyone else for that matter? 

>
>> >So what? How does that change the fact that Darwin was a proponent of
>> >Social Darwinism?
>> 
>> Ah, the light may begin to dawn on you.  The quote you gave has *nothing*
>> to do with Social Darwinism
>
>It is an expression of a racist view based upon scientific reasoning.

It is a discussion of taxonomy that you could not follow and, as a result,
you misunderstood.  The fact that you cannot or refuse to understand, after
having it explained, is tipping the likely cause over into dishonesty.

>
>> >Why did you take so much time to post so much material that is not
>> >pertinent to the question at hand.
>> 
>> Because *you* took the time to post a quote that was not pertinent to the
>> question at hand and make a dishonest and/or ignorant argument from it.
>
>Nope. The quote was and is revealing about Darwin's view of mulattoes.

No.  It is revealing only about your preconceived views on Darwin (and
probably evolution) and, ultimately, about your lack of understanding of
either.

>
>> >Darwin was a proponent of Social Darwinism:
>> >http://teachers.sduhsd.k12.ca.us/gstimson/socialdarwin.htm
>> 
>> Based on your now clearly demonstrated inability to read Darwin or, I
>> suspect, much else, your opinion ain't worth much.
>
>Newsflash. It ain't just my opinion

There are lots of ignorant people in the world.  

Some are as anxious as you are to proclaim it.

---------------
J. Pieret
---------------

It is misleading for creationists to characterize science 
in general and evolution in particular as "godless." 
Science is godless in the same way that plumbing is godless. 

                               - Robert T. Pennock -