Subject: Darwin and Racism
To: Separation of Church & State
> > they were both racists. darwin and kingsley.
In article <firstname.lastname@example.org>, email@example.com (GroveLdy) writes:
>Darwin was not a racist. He defined man as a decendent from the Apes and did
>not differentiate between black and white in this. your hatred of Darwin...
One of the most important yet least-known aspects of Darwin is his racism: Darwin regarded white Europeans as more "advanced" than other human races. While Darwin presumed that man evolved from ape-like creatures, he surmised that some races developed more than others and that the latter still bore simian features. In his book, The Descent of Man, which he published after The Origin of Species, he boldly commented on "the greater differences between men of distinct races".(1) In his book, Darwin held blacks and Australian Aborigines to be equal to gorillas and then inferred that these would be "done away with" by the "civilised races" in time. He said:
At some future period, not very distant as measured by centuries, the civilized races of man will almost certainly exterminate and replace the savage races throughout the world. At the same time the anthropomorphous apes... will no doubt be exterminated. The break between man in a more civilised state, as we may hope, even than the Caucasian, and some ape as low as baboon, instead of as now between the negro or Australian and the gorilla.(2)
Darwin's nonsensical ideas were not only theorised, but also brought into a position
where they provided the most important "scientific ground" for racism. Supposing
that living beings evolved in the struggle for life, Darwinism was even adapted to the
social sciences, and turned into a conception that came to be called "Social
1 Benjamin Farrington, What Darwin Really Said. London, Sphere Books, 1971, p.54-56
2 Charles Darwin, The Descent of Man, 2nd ed., New York, A.L. Burt Co., 1874, p.178
Stephen Jay Gould tells about Darwin's first article -- long before he wrote on
evolution. Darwin was just 29. He and the captain of the Beagle wrote on "The Moral
State of Tahiti."
It was a paternalistic little piece. They said missionaries hadn't only done away with "dishonesty, licentiousness, and intemperance" on Tahiti. They'd also eliminated human sacrifice. The article carefully tries to head off any claim that decency might've been there before missionaries came.
Did an older and wiser Darwin leave this youthful racism? He did not. In fact, he was sexist as well as racist. He said we'd be in trouble without the law of equal transmission of characteristics to both sexes. Without it man would've grown so superior to woman as to be a different species.
The complete title of Darwin's most famous work, often abbreviated to The Origin of Species, was The Origin. of Species by Means of Natural Selection or the Preservation of Favoured Races in the Struggle for Life. As Koster notes about Darwin's view on race, he:
'never considered "the less civilized races" to be authentically human. For all his decent hatred of slavery, his writings reek with all kinds of contempt for "primitive" people. Racism was culturally conditioned into educated Victorians by such "scientific" parlor tricks as Morton's measuring of brainpans with BB shot to prove that Africans and Indians had small brains, and hence, had deficient minds and intellects. Meeting the simple Indians of Tierra del Fuego, Darwin wrote: "I could not have believed how wide was the difference between savage and civilized man; it is greater than between a wild and domesticated animal . . . Viewing such a man, one can hardly make oneself believe that they are fellow creatures and inhabitants of the same world."44
Darwin's belief that some races (such as blacks) were inferior to others became so widely accepted that, as Haller concluded: 'the subject of race inferiority was beyond critical reach in the late nineteenth century.45 Although Darwin opposed all forms of slavery, he did conclude that one of the strongest evidences for evolution was the existence of living 'primitive races' which he believed were evolutionarily between the 'civilized races of man' and the gorilla:
'At some future period, not very distant as measured by centuries, the civilized races of man will almost certainly exterminate, and replace, the savage races throughout the world. At the same time, the anthropomorphous apes. . . will no doubt be exterminated. The break between man and his nearest allies will then be wider, for it will intervene between man in a more civilized state, as we may hope, even than the Caucasian, and some ape as low as a baboon, instead of as now between the Negro or Australian and the gorilla. ... It has often been said ... that man can resist with impunity the greatest diversities of climate and other changes; but this is true only of the civilized races. Man in his wild condition seems to be in this respect almost as susceptible as his nearest allies, the anthropoid apes, which have never yet survived long, when removed from their native country.' 46
The missing link wasn't missing but, many evolutionists of the time concluded, lived in
Australia and other faroffplaces.47 The existence of some living races was openly viewed
as irrefutable evidence of a graduation of living creatures 'linking' humans to the
monkeys (or today 'to our common primate ancestor'). This 'scientific conclusion' was
interpreted as compelling evidence for evolution, thus a large number of biology textbooks
of the time discussed the 'hierarchy of the races' topic.
44. Koster, John, 1988. The Atheist Syndrome, Wolgemuth and Hyatt Publishers, Brentwood, Tennessee p. 50.
45. Haller, John S. Jr., 1971. Outcasts From Evolution: Scientific Attitudes to Racial Inferiority, 1859-1900, University of Illinois Press, Urbana, Illinois, p .132.
46. Darwin, Charles, 1896. The Descent of Man and Selection in Relation to Sex; The Works of Charles Darwin, D. Appleton and Company, New York (First edition by AMS Press, 1972), pp. 241-242.
47. de Laubenfels, M. W., 1949. Pageant of Life Science, Prentice-Hall, New York.
The first hint that Darwin was a racist can be seen in the subtitle selected for his Origin
of Species. The words chosen were: "The Preservation of Favored Races in the
Struggle for Life." Whom do you suppose Darwin tagged the "Unfavored
Races?" This subtitle has been eliminated from all modern printings of the book, but
it remains on the original.
If there is any doubt that Darwin was a raging racist, these words should leave no doubt: "At some future period (Darwin writes), not very distant as measured by centuries, the civilized races of man will almost certainly exterminate and replace the savage races throughout the world. At the same time the anthropomorphous apes ... will no doubt be exterminated. The break between man and his nearest Allies will then be wider, for it will intervene between man in a more civilized state, as we may hope, even than the Caucasian, and some ape as low as the baboon, instead of as now between the Negro or Australian and the gorilla." (Charles Darwin, The Descent of Man 2nd ed (New York: A. L. Burt Co., 1874), p. 178).
"No rational man (writes Thomas Huxley, a contemporary evolutionist), cognizant of the facts, believes that the average Negro is the equal, still less the superior, of the white man. And if this be true, it is simply incredible that, when all his disabilities are removed, and our prognathous relative has a fair field and no favor, as well as no oppressor, he will be able to compete successfully with his bigger-brained and smaller-jawed rival, in a contest which is to be carried out on by thoughts and not by bites." (Thomas H. Huxley, "Lay Sermans, Addresses and Reviews" (New York: Appleton, 1871) p. 20. Huxley was arguing that blacks could not compete intellectually with Caucasians, even under equal and fair conditions.)
A half century later, Darwin follower Henry Fairfield Osborn writes: "The Negroid stock is even more ancient than the Caucasian and Mongolian, as may be proved by an examination not only of the brain, of the hair, of the bodily characters. such as the teeth, the genitalia, the sense organs, but of the instincts, the intelligence. The standard of intelligence of the average Negro is similar to that of the eleven-year-old youth of the species Homo sapiens. (Henry Fairfield Osborn, "The Evolution of the Human Races," Natural History, Jan./Feb. 1926. Reprinted in Natural History 89 (April 1980): 129.).
It should be no surprise that no lesser racist villain than Adolf Hitler picked up on Darwin's evolutionary theories. Karl Schleunes writes: "Darwin's notion of struggle for survival was quickly appropriated by title racist ... such struggle legitimized by the latest scientific views, justified the racists' conception of superior and inferior peoples ... and validated the struggle between them." (Karl A. Schleunes, The Twisted Road To Auchwitz (Urbana, IL: University of Illinois Press, 1970)p. 30 , 32. Cited by J. Bergman, "Eugenics and Nazi Racial Policy," p. 118.)
Before 1859 (before Darwin), many scientists had questioned whether blacks were of the same species as whites, but they had no scientific basis for that notion. Things changed once Darwin presented his racist evolutionary schema. Darwin stated that African-Americans could not survive competition with their white near-relations, let alone being able to compete with the white race. According to Darwin, the African was inferior because he represented the missing-link" between ape and Teuton. (John C. Burham, Science, vol. 175 (February 4, 1972) p.506).
In Germany, satanic racial hatred was fostered among the elite, the educated, the
politically powerful, by Darwin's "scientific" teachings and Heidegger's modern
"scientific" disbelief in the God of the Bible and his disregard for the worth
of human life, taught in the elementary and secondary schools and in the universities. The
callous disregard for human life which resulted, took the form of wholesale abortion, and
euphenasia centers where multitudes of the elderly, the handicapped, and mentally
challenged were being routinely and expediently slaughtered years before the war as the
general public was, partially through the lying propaganda of Darwin's Evolutionary
Racism," numbed to the reality of the horror and evil involved as they had been
taught to regard these people as "subhuman."
The fruit of these anti-Biblical, anti-God of the Bible beliefs was present for years in Germany before World War II, fueled by the malevolent evil released by the occultic spiritual worship across Germany. An ever increasing network of Death Camps were developed for the heartless elimination of racial inferiors, and the sadistic torturous medical breeding experiments intended to bring about the overall "improvement" of the German Aryan race. State owned Aryan Breeding Farms were built where blond blue eyed Aryan SS men were bred to young single "Aryan" women to produce "Super Race" babies to be raised by the state."
The doctrines of "survival of the fittest" - evolutionism, philisophical pseudoscientific existentialism, earth deifying enviromentalism, ancient occultic paganism and pedophilic homosexual perversion, all combined to form and produce German National Socialism (Nazism), and all of these ideologies and philosophies have been accepted and nurtured by our professionals and taught in our own schools and universities for many decades now - starting long before Hitler's rise to power. Our society is indeed ripe for harvest.
Is the same fruit Nazi Germany brought forth being reproduced in our own backyard? In the United States, babies are now brought to term, allowed to be born with the exception of the head, and then cruelly murdered by having the brains sucked from the skull by a vacuum, while the head is retained in the birth canal. This procedure is protected by the law of the land, and some of our brightest most able legislators including the president, have fought to make it so.
The bodies of these innocent victims are "harvested" for profit: by the medical industry to provide organs for transplant, research laboratories use tissue for experimentation and even vanity is served by the use of collagen for cosmetics and shampoos.
This is human sacrifice to the idolatrous ancient gods, Molech or Marduk, the fire god of Babylonian Sun worship, Isis of Egypt, Baal of Babylon and Caanan, Cybele - the Magna Mater (Great Mother) of ancient Babylon and Rome, and Sophia, the Gnostic Greek goddess of wisdom.
There is an hypothesis that has not yet adequately been considered. Staunch evolutionist, Sir Arthur Keith claims:
The German Fuhrer . . . consciously sought to make the practice of Germany conform to the theory of evolution. 1
Elsewhere, Keith wrote:
The leader of Germany is an evolutionist, not only in theory, but, as millions know to their cost, in the rigor of its practice. For him, the national "front" of Europe is also the evolutionary "front;" he regards himself, and is regarded, as the incarnation of the will of Germany, the purpose of that will being to guide the evolutionary destiny of its people. 2
Hitler used the German word for evolution (Entwicklung) over and over again in his
book. In fact, it is not unreasonable to suppose that the very title itself of Hitler's
book ("My Struggle"), was influenced by Darwin's subtitle, "Struggle for
Existence," and by the German advocate of evolution, Ernst Haeckel, who published a
book, in 1905, entitled, Der Kampf um den Entwicklungs-Gedanken ("The Struggle over
1 Sir Arthur Keith, Evolution and Ethics (New York: G.P. Putnam's Sons, 1947), p. 230.
2 Ibid., p. 10.
With respect to the question of race struggle, as exemplified especially in Germany, Sir Arthur also observed:
"Christianity makes no distinction of race or of colour: it seeks to break down all racial barriers. In this respect, the hand of Christianity is against that of Nature, for are not the races of mankind the evolutionary harvest which Nature has toiled through long ages to produce?"9
9. Arthur Keith: Evolution and Ethics (New York, G. P. Putnams Sons, 1949), p.
And they shall beat their swords into plowshares
and sit under their Vine & Fig Tree.