As I understand it, the larger title includes 'the preservaqtion of favored races" which is expanded on in the book as whites over blacks and English over Irish.
As I understand it Darwin requested several sub human in his view aborigenes be captured alive and brought to England for taxidermy and as I understand it at least one pymy was in a cage as a popular exihbit in the Bronx Zoo for a time
Isnt this racism? Why does it get a free pass?
Isnt it more true to say there is only one race, the human race which only comes in one color melanin and in a variety of shades
2006-08-16 03:46:33 · 10 answers · asked by Anonymous in Social Science ➔ Anthropology
psssttt!! science... animals are not part of the human race like aborigenes or pygmies... does that make me a human racist? possibly....yet I remain very sympathietic to avoiding unecessary cuetly to animals or not subjecting them to unecessary pain
2006-08-16 15:14:51 · update #1
I guess if animal rights activists want to call me a human racist becuase I grant all ethnic groups dignity by virtue of being made in the image of God but not to animals... then so be it.
2006-08-16 15:17:06 · update #2
No offense to anyone,,not even C.D. but keep in mind his thinking was early, new experiencial thinking. Discoveries, theories, and stating what seems to be so, often changes with evolution.
He stated what he believed, not at all in a racist way,,,just an ignorance of what was fact,,,as opposed to theory.
I suggest an analogy... Not at all related to race or even species strictly.
If MAN,,,of any color, evolved from APES, what happened in that evolutionary process to cause APES to stop evolving into MEN, and what keeps MAN from UNevolving, back into Apes?
Rev. Steven
2006-08-16 03:58:15 · answer #1 · answered by DIY Doc 7 · 1⤊ 0⤋
Actually, if one accepts evolution - not even evolution from one species to another, but evolution and adaptation within a species - then there are some troubling moral implications.
If, as is currently thought, humans originated in a small region and spread out over the world 100,000 to 150,000 years ago, that means there have been THOUSANDS of generations in which discrete populations have evolved independently. One would expect "variations" to have cropped up, no matter how subtle - especially a Darwinist. Especially since it's been touted that birds in the Galopagos Islands have evolved from the time of Darwin's trip less than 200 years ago! Even with, say, two generations a year (improbably frequent), that's only 400 chances for change, not a few thousand. No one knows what genetic studies will find.
Read up on who Margaret Sanger was, and what Hitler thought of Darwin and eugenics.
But at least we're not ignoring science, like those Bible-thumpers! "All men are created equal, endowed by their Creator with certain inalienable rights," my a**! Don't force your superstitions on me! And I thought there was a wall of separation between church and state. Why do we have a holiday for a Christian minister every January? Only science, and cold, hard reason, will save us. Faith can't be proved in a laboratory, so it's worthless.
Get the picture? (It's called sarcasm.)
2006-08-16 03:57:33 · answer #2 · answered by American citizen and taxpayer 7 · 0⤊ 0⤋
It may well have been a racist book, which really isn't surprising when you consider the time it was written. That doesn't dismiss the scientific and literary value of the book, however. Darwin's theory outlined in this book has been a mainstay of biology and anthropology for...well, since it was written. We just gloss over the crazy parts nowadays. In fact, we do this with lots and lots texts, both new and old.
EDIT: The word "primitive" might have some nice colloquial meanings, but it really tends to get in the way of honest inquiry. I understand the need to keep and open mind and the importance of steering clear of propaganda and stagnation, which is partly why I tend not to use the word. It's way too contextual, and usually denotes varying levels of racist intent anyway.
2006-08-17 05:55:48 · answer #3 · answered by The Ry-Guy 5 · 1⤊ 0⤋
The fact is that certain people, particularly the ******* and australoid subspecies (homo sapien africanus and homo sapien australus, respectively), ARE more primitive than other humans, because the particular environments that they evolved in did not prod them to advance quickly enough. So what? That does not mean that they should be treated badly simply because they are more primitive. Is it okay to beat up a monkey with a stick just because it is primitive? NO. By implying that people that are more advanced should be treated better than people that are more primitive, it is you who are supporting racism. You are also implying that animals should not have rights.
response to the question asker's comments:
Do not libellously falsely portray me as having said that non-humans are part of the human species.
"yet I remain very sympathietic to avoiding unecessary cuetly to animals or not subjecting them to unecessary pain"
-Then you are not very speciesist. Some people argue that animals (and sometimes certain races) should not have that right, just because they are less intelligent, and that is largely why some people are so intent on showing that no race is more primitive than others.
2006-08-16 14:19:56 · answer #4 · answered by Anonymous · 0⤊ 2⤋
The title is "Origin of Species", and in Darwin's time the term "race" didn't mean what it means today. Darwin was referring to what we might call "varieties" of individuals within a given species (any species, not just human). Also, the book didn't deal with human evolution (he wrote "Descent of Man" on that topic a few years later). You are absolutely right about humans being one species, and the term "race" when applied to humans has absolutely no biological meaning.
2006-08-16 10:25:39 · answer #5 · answered by stevewbcanada 6 · 2⤊ 0⤋
social Darwinism was used by whites to "validate" the oppression of other races. also, remember the time when that was written was very different... of course it's closer to the truth to say there's one human race, but do you think that thought would have occured to Darwin? i doubt he even knew about melanin...
the sad thing is that Darwin's ideas of racial supremacy have been embedded in some people's minds...(ironically...some are creationists lol). and that's more the issue than his original intentions...some people don't understand the idea of progress
2006-08-17 03:57:19 · answer #6 · answered by Anonymous · 0⤊ 0⤋
the 1st people have been black, this has been shown by utilising midocondrial dna. As we migrated to chillier areas, our pores and skin, eyes and hair lightened as we did no longer desire the pigmentation to guard us from the sunlight. Darwin for sure wasn't rather as clever as a lot of human beings look to think of he replaced into, yet I guess they're going to proceed to believe each and every stupid concept he got here up with. as far as putting a individual in a cage, i've got little doubt Darwin pays for that in the process a few way or yet another.
2016-12-17 11:50:12 · answer #7 · answered by cheathem 4 · 0⤊ 0⤋
It gets a free pass because the recognition of evolution is a great accomplishment. The racism is unfortunate, but you can't expect a guy living in the 1850's to have 21st-century cultural sensitivity and knowledge of genetics.
2006-08-16 04:54:39 · answer #8 · answered by Anonymous · 2⤊ 0⤋
Yes, it is racism. But it does NOT get a free pass. That part of the book is now known to be inaccurate.
2006-08-16 03:56:55 · answer #9 · answered by Anonymous · 0⤊ 0⤋
sounds like racism to me. Good thing people came to their senses. George Washington had slaves too. Might as well condemn everyone who made money outa slaves
2006-08-16 03:53:30 · answer #10 · answered by jercha 4 · 0⤊ 0⤋