The National Forum   Donate   Your Account   On Line Opinion   Forum   Blogs   Polling   About   
The Forum - On Line Opinion's article discussion area



Syndicate
RSS/XML


RSS 2.0

Main Articles General

Sign In      Register

The Forum > Article Comments > Charles Darwin, Abraham Lincoln and race > Comments

Charles Darwin, Abraham Lincoln and race : Comments

By Hiram Caton, published 3/4/2009

Neither Darwin nor Lincoln believed in racial equality: they believed humankind is structured in a hierarchy with Caucasians at the peak.

  1. Pages:
  2. 1
  3. 2
  4. 3
  5. ...
  6. 6
  7. 7
  8. 8
  9. All
Well I've read this and I don't really understand what it is about. Yes both men where Men of their times, while they did have some progressive ideas, they did have what we would consider to be Racist ideas. There has been a push form some creationist pundits to try and cast a shadow on evolution by casting a shadow on the man, maybe this is what this piece is trying to do?
The reality is the research into our origins has led to the modern understanding that race is a social construct and has no biological basis.
Posted by Kenny, Friday, 3 April 2009 9:56:54 AM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
A thesis that falls at the first canard.

"Darwin is proclaimed in celebration events to be the greatest biologist ever and some say even the greatest scientist. Just as his proof of evolution displaced the religious conception of divine creation..."

Those whose apparent life's mission is to discredit Darwin's work often use this as a starting point.

The reality however is that Darwin's theories are resolutely silent on the topic of creation, divine or otherwise.

In fact, the first edition of "Origin" reads as follows:

"I should infer from analogy that probably all the organic beings which have ever lived on this earth have descended from some one primordial form, into which life was first breathed"

This - as befits a great scientist - limits his conclusions to what he observed, and leaves the rest untouched.

So what we have here is yet another creationist, having a good solid tilt at a windmill from his own imagination.

It must suck to be so wrong.
Posted by Pericles, Friday, 3 April 2009 10:21:56 AM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
This article perpetuates the common misunderstanding of Darwin's phrase "survival of the fittest", as meaning something along the lines of "the strong triumphing over the weak".

It is perhaps understandable, in that of its various meanings the word "fit" is today mostly understood as meaning "physically fit", or simply "strong", but what Darwin had in mind when he used the word "fit", was "best fitting" or "most apt".

This is explicitly clear from his statement that "the fittest win out at the expense of their rivals because they succeed in adapting themselves best to their environment." In other words, those who are the best adapted to their environment are most likely to survive.

(I'm prepared to be forgiving regarding such semantic misunderstandings - after all, it's not long ago that I got roasted for mistakenly using the word "evolution" when what I really meant was "natural selection".)
Posted by Clownfish, Friday, 3 April 2009 10:56:16 AM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Pericles has hit it on the head.

The creationists are trying to play the man and not the ball.

Darwin having just developed one of the greatest tools for describing the evolution of life forms through survival of the fittest was simply using the tool to analyse the clashes between groups of humans.

In no point did he propose eugenics as the author said, which is the "purification" of a race by eliminating the undesirables, or that the elimination of other cultures was a good thing.

In fact seeing the plight of indigenous people through most of the world, and the extinction of many of their cultures, it would appear that he was not far off the mark
Posted by Shadow Minister, Friday, 3 April 2009 11:10:46 AM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Hard to tell if this grand indictment on Lincoln's character allows for the difference between the personal and political.

But I'm presuming not.

As any undergraduate of Political Science knows, much of Lincoln's writings had to walk a fine line between espousing values he believed in personally, and that which would play politically among the general populace.

Simply put, to publicly suggest to Americans of that period that slavery of blacks should end because it was morally wrong for the white race to presume superiority over all others would be political suicide -- Lincoln would have been out on his ear having achieved nothing. Being the canny political mind he was, Lincoln understood well that couching his argument instead in economic terms was far more likely to gain wider support.

A comparison today would be the politican that tried to outlaw private cars because they are so blatantly bad for the environment. Regardless of how valid the belief may be, the average punters just ain't gonna buy it.
Posted by Shorn, Friday, 3 April 2009 12:52:50 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Clownfish - Good point. As I understand, it was the right-wing philosopher, Herbert Spencer, who popularised the term 'survival of the fittest' in response to Darwin's writing. Much of Spencer's philosophy was about dividing humanity into levels of importance and putting people most like himself at the top.

Darwin acknowledged Spencer's use of the term 'survival of the fittest' but preferred to use his own term 'natural selection'.
Posted by SJF, Friday, 3 April 2009 1:29:47 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Actually, Darwin acknowledged "Spencer's excellent expression", which Spencer coined in the first place after reading Darwin's concept of natural selection in "On the origin of species". Darwin himself preferred "natural selection", however.

I'm not much of an expert on Spencer's philosophy, but he seems to have though that society was also subject to evolution, albeit a kind of evolution that was reaching upwards to a kind of social perfection (ok, there is a word for this, but it escapes me at present ...). As such, he was opposed to social reform programmes, etc., which he saw as interfering with natural selection.

I'm not sure if he necessarily regarded other (presumably non-White, non-British) races as inherently inferior or not. I suspect part of the problem may be that the use of the term "race" had different, possibly less perjorative, connotations in Spencer's time.
Posted by Clownfish, Friday, 3 April 2009 3:22:20 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Hiram Caton is described as an evolutionist on the "TruthInScience" website (which seems to be a creationist website) http://www.truthinscience.org.uk/site/content/view/242/63/ and http://post-darwinist.blogspot.com/2007/05/update-aussie-prof-who-protests-darwin.html

http://post-darwinist.blogspot.com/2008_08_14_archive.html

Some more about him at http://www.whither-progress.org/documents/CATON%20VS%20FEMINISTS.pdf

I get the impression that Caton's angle is about debunking the misrepresentation of science (and it's history). Not a creationist but an evolutionist who thinks that much that's written about Darwin is driven by ideology rather than fact.

R0bert
Posted by R0bert, Friday, 3 April 2009 3:36:13 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
'.or the reflection at once rushed into my mind - such were our ancestors. These men were absolutely naked and bedaubed with paint…”'

With this warped thinking it is no wonder evolutionist thought that the aboriginals were less than human and could in fact be the missing (eternal) link. How they continue to believe the fraud of evolution defies belief.
Posted by runner, Friday, 3 April 2009 5:00:01 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Clownfish

'... a kind of evolution that was reaching upwards to a kind of social perfection (ok, there is a word for this, but it escapes me at present ...)'

It escapes me too, but it does embody the dubious principle beyond the myth of progress, which assumes that human society (or evolution) is on a linear continuum from a primitive to an advanced state. I believe more in the concept of cyclical existence - and that 'primitive' and 'advanced' states of being are no more than value judgements.

Just my thoughts ...

R0bert

'I get the impression that Caton's angle is about debunking the misrepresentation of science (and it's history). Not a creationist but an evolutionist who thinks that much that's written about Darwin is driven by ideology rather than fact.'

I agree. Caton didn't come across to me as a creationist at all. I don't know why some posters here seem to have formed that opinion.
Posted by SJF, Friday, 3 April 2009 6:30:58 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
I obviously need to get out more ... this nagged at me, until the answer popped into my faltering grey matter, late last night.

The word is, of course ...

TELEOLOGY!
Posted by Clownfish, Saturday, 4 April 2009 11:08:56 AM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Hiram Caton is a liar.

Darwin opposed slavery, expressed that eugenics should be left to the choice of the individuals, and generally expressed a far more liberal view than most in his time.

To do the same for the church would be to prosecute people for suggesting the earth revolved around the sun, and proposing that heathen natives were better off dead than remaining non christian.

What a loser.
Posted by Democritus, Saturday, 4 April 2009 1:42:47 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Democritus,

"Hiram Caton is a liar.

Darwin opposed slavery, expressed that eugenics should be left to the choice of the individuals, and generally expressed a far more liberal view than most in his time."

and from Caton's article:
"Darwin passionately opposed slavery from his early years and closely followed Lincoln’s leadership of the Civil War."

How can Caton be a liar if he says this right up front?

The way I read the article, all Caton is saying - and pretty tamely at that - is that there are some double standards operating within that group of people who are getting the plaudits for their contribution to mankind. The final para I think is telling:

"The scientific establishment hails Darwin for his culture-transforming insight into true human origins. Yet this exalted knowledge didn’t free him from the then prevailing belief in the superiority of the Caucasian race. Refusal to acknowledge this fact says something about the vulnerability of High Science to human frailty."

In other words, Darwin's and Lincoln's hold on power and position was contingent on them (mostly) tacitly following the political path of least resistance and not rocking the boat. At the same time, they cleverly/judiciously/wisely [put the correct word in here] positioned themselves so that the majority of the public could not see the double standards operating behind the scenes.

Caton's argument has got absolutely nothing to do with creationists vs evolutionists. His argument is a lot better than that.
Posted by RobP, Saturday, 4 April 2009 2:49:26 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
RobP

Hiram Caton stated:

"Darwin surmised, by eugenic measures proposed by his cousin, Francis Galton. These he endorsed, but expressed his misgiving that they probably wouldn’t succeed"

He did no such thing

His own daughter died from a congenital defect inherited from him, and he surmised that if he had known he might have chosen not to have passed on this defect. He also suggested that this should be a matter of conscience for others too, but differed from his half cousin in that he believed it should be left to the choice of the individuals concerned.

As eugenics is the forced imposition of this "breeding program" Darwin did not endorse it in the slightest, and saying so is a lie, that if Darwin was alive today would see Caton sued for slander and libel.

To claim that because Darwin did not stand up against all the thinking of the day that has become politically incorrect only in the last few decades, is so trite, that combined with the lie on eugenics, has only the purpose of trying to blacken his character and thus the relevance of his theories.

As Caton's previous articles have been on Darwin along this line, mixing some truths with misdirection and outright lies. It can only be concluded that his purpose is to undermine Darwin.
Posted by Democritus, Saturday, 4 April 2009 3:37:07 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Whoa there, Democritus –
That someone is deliberately lying and misrepresenting information is a very serious charge. To accuse a scholar who specializes in a certain field of so-doing is to rob that person of their credibility and could have very serious repercussions both for the accused and the one making the accusations if they, in turn, are shown to be wrong.

Is it possible that, in your haste to read an article which obviously concerns someone you admire, you might have skipped something or misunderstood?

The full sentence of which you quoted a part actually reads: “The process can be arrested, Darwin surmised, by eugenic measures proposed by his cousin, Francis Galton.” Thus “The process” is actually the subject of the sentence and the process referred to is the degradation of the human race which Caton is referring to in this paragraph.

By making this degradation the subject both of the entire paragraph as well as the sentence quoted I gained a completely different understanding of this para. than did you.

The endorsement of Galton’s research I took to mean that he could objectively see that the research was sound. The fact that he could see it would be impossible and impractical to introduce such measure to ensure the survival of the fittest rather than the most degraded of humanity seems entirely in line with Darwin as both scientist and man. Certainly I don’t see it blackening his name?

Actually, if any blackening has been done it occurred – for me – in the beginning of the article when Caton professed his colleagues “shocked” when learning that a couple of men from a different time period held the common views of that period.

Makes the colleagues seem like rather thick mob, doesn’t it?

I therefore rather shared the first posters reaction to the piece, which is why I didn’t comment before this.
Posted by Romany, Saturday, 4 April 2009 8:23:24 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Surely no one believes that they were born that clichéd paragon of virtue, do they? Does anyone not think that they might be aligned with the idea preserving racial purity etc, were they born a few centuries ago? Perhaps instead of judging figures like Lincoln and Darwin by today's standards, we might appreciate that these figures played a role in formulating the ideas underlying our present civilisation by which so many seem to think themselves superior.

As an example, would any think himself a superior being to a Nu Guinea native who thinks it okay to slit your throat and boil you up in a pot, or simply privileged to be part of a modern civilisation?
Posted by Fester, Saturday, 4 April 2009 9:21:24 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
A few of the early contributors wrongly accuse Caton of favouring creationism after his slight criticism of Darwin. Perhaps this displays their oversensitivity towards any criticism of Darwin, or how attached is their evolutionary world view to the aura surrounding this 19th Century gent.

I can easily agree with Kenny when he says that race is a social construct and has no biological basis. Yet I don’t see how that squares with Darwin’s writings, ‘Origin of Species: The Preservation of the Favoured Races in the Struggle for Existence’ and others, unless Kenny also sees Darwin’s ideas as residing on no biological basis.
Posted by Dan S de Merengue, Saturday, 4 April 2009 10:48:47 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Dear Michael,

When Darwin spoke of "races", he was referring to varieties. The Origin of Species barely even refers to humans.

But thank you for the gross disply of deceitfulness; showing once again that creationists cannot be trusted.
Posted by AdamD, Saturday, 4 April 2009 11:59:26 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Adam,
You’re pretty quick off the blocks in the race for name calling.

It was clear in my post that I was talking about Darwin’s writings (plural) and not just Origin.

I would agree that we should try to be careful about definitions when it comes to things like races, varieties, species, etc. If you read Caton’s article, himself an evolutionist, you would have read some selections taken from Darwin’s writings in which Darwin reveals some of his thoughts on human races. Why don’t you take up your complaint with Caton?

I’ll repeat that as far as people go, ‘race’ has no biological basis. There is only one race, the human race.

And as Romany alluded earlier, we ought not to be so quick to lay allegations. That is, unless you prefer the discussion’s descent into name calling.
Posted by Dan S de Merengue, Sunday, 5 April 2009 3:48:59 AM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Dear Michael,

Playing the victim by using terms like “name calling” is an act of futility when the charges against you are overwhelmingly substantiated. If I were to call someone a “liar” when in fact they had been caught out lying, their accusations of ‘name calling’ would not nullify the fact that they have lied. It’s a nice attempt at diverting one’s deceitfulness, but others here reading this thread won’t be fooled by it. People are not stupid.

You wrote: "I can easily agree with Kenny when he says that race is a social construct and has no biological basis."

And that is precisely consistent with what evolution shows. We are all one race. Hence the Social Darwinism argument pushed by creationists is null and void.

But then you go on to say: “Yet I don’t see how that squares with Darwin’s writings, ‘Origin of Species: The Preservation of the Favoured Races in the Struggle for Existence’”

Playing the man and not the ball is an issue that has already been brought up in this thread, and that’s precisely what you do when you attempt to paint evolution as inherently racist in the above. A move that is deceitful.

Darwin probably saw other races as inferior just as many people of his time did. Abraham Lincoln even made some racist comments about Negros and their supposed inferiority to whites despite his objection to slavery.

Yet despite factors like this, and the fact that Darwin knew very little about his own theory compared to modern day scientists, you attempt to make evolution and/or Darwin appear “ugly” by emphasising the racist sounding title of his book as if that nullified the phenomenally large amount of evidence to support it.

Your post was deceitful in more than one way, yet here you are trying to deny it. To top it all off, you acuse me of 'name calling' as if my accusations were unsubstantiated.

It's an absolute disgrace.
Posted by AdamD, Sunday, 5 April 2009 5:03:56 AM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Romany, I agree.
In fact, I find it more interesting that people weren't aware of these clay feet. I have had the discussion/argument with several Americans who avowed the American civil war was fought to free the slaves. According to the histories I have read, Lincoln's primary objective was to preserve the Union.
Likewise, Darwin's evolutionary theories implied -at least to people of his day- that within humanity there were more or less evolved peoples, rather like the difference between Neanderthal and Cro Magnon.
Actually, I recall a Social Studies text in primary school, showing the various stages of the evolution of Man.
Australopithicus, 4'0" tall; Neanderthal, 4'6", Cro Magnon 5'0" modern man 5'8", *American 6'0'*... 3 guesses where it was written.
As I mentioned in a recent article, Gandhi is a hero of mine, despite there being some evidence he was a bit of a racist, -at least where African Natives were concerned.
I was first a little shocked, then wryly amused to read in Marx's manifesto, that hero of the working class, these words (inspired perhaps, by Darwin?):

"The bourgeoisie, wherever it has got the upper hand, has put an
end to all feudal, patriarchal, idyllic relations. It has
pitilessly torn asunder the motley feudal ties that bound man to
his "natural superiors," and has left remaining no other nexus
between man and man than naked self-interest, than callous "cash
payment."
As they say, nobody's perfect.
Posted by Grim, Sunday, 5 April 2009 7:07:17 AM
Find out more about this user Visit this user's webpage Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
It seems to me that any debate containing the words creation and evolution is destined to stall and degenerate. I think it was Emile Durkheim that suggested of these subjects that “consensus, even for the purpose of study, is rarely, if ever, achieved”.

Were it not for human sapience we would not of course, have any debate, and as far as we know, the millions of other biological forms on this planet are not having this debate.

Can we therefore accept that on the evolutionary side of things, if it does occur, it would occur whether or not it can be debated by humans? On the creation side of things, what purpose does creation have for non-sapient biology?

This leaves us with the question, “is our sapience a product of evolution or creation?” Without getting drawn into the usual destructive philosophical diversions, the evolutionary path if it exists has been in place for hundreds of millions of years. The creation path has been a recent yet indefinable phenomenon, because it can only have relevance or even exist since we became capable of “imagining” it.

Therefore faith based constructs of creation could not exist if there were no humans capable of creating the image, whereas evolution can happily exist without us, it does not even need Charles Darwin. The rest to me is an interesting exercise in human study that cannot, as Emile Durkheim suggests, reach any form of consensus
Posted by spindoc, Sunday, 5 April 2009 10:19:46 AM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Yes any post on any board on the web about this subject generally going down the same path. It is important to separate scientific dissent and religiously motivated denial.
I’m only interested in the scientific debate, there is a lot of it within the field. The debate is not however about the fundamentals that Darwin established. Did he get everything right, well clearly no, but the same can be said for Newton, Einstein and Maxwell. It can seem strange to people why Darwin is held in such esteem by lovers of scientific knowledge. For me it’s simple these are ordinary people who have had extraordinary ideas.
It is said that science progress’s on the shoulders of giants, with most working scientists filling in the mortar. Darwin laid the foundation of our understanding of how biology come to be in all its wonder. This insight, this simple but at the same time complicated idea has become biology, It would be a very big shift to overturn the basic principles of evolution, and so far nothing it coming close having that power. There are still gaps in our understanding of the story, and some will never be filled, but nothing makes sense in biology except in the light of evolution.
@ Dan S de Merengue, that’s easy Darwin was simply wrong about these things, scientist throw out ideas that don’t stand up to the evidence and keep ones that do. If his ideas about what drives evolution were not supported by the evidence then we probably wouldn’t even know who he was.
@Running, thanks for yet another mindless contribution.
Posted by Kenny, Sunday, 5 April 2009 12:10:35 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Grim,

Right - have heard that one about the noble impetus to free the slaves impelling the Northerners many times myself. In fact it permeates many a Dream Machine movie too.

As Kenny says, scientists - and physicists and chemists and mathematicians - make mistakes. Also, though they work in a field of objectivity and empiricism they live/d in a real world which informs their characters and beliefs.

I think there is a need in many of us to elevate those we admire to hero status: this both comforts us when we, as “ordinary” people, fail to achieve great things, and either provides proof of god’s greatness in creating such marvels, or sublimates a need to believe in supernatural heroes…according to our bent.

As my field is the Arts, I find it often increases my appreciation of certain figures to anchor them firmly in their own milieu rather than transposing them to ours. When both Darwin and Lincoln are looked at in the context of their times to me it adds another dimension both to them as people and to their achievements.

Unfortunately, my view of Shakespeare as a bi-sexual philanderer with delusions of grandeur is looked on almost as blasphemy by some of my students
Posted by Romany, Sunday, 5 April 2009 1:04:26 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Romany

On the theme of understanding the accomplishments of anyone within the context of their own time:

"...Shakespeare as a bi-sexual philanderer with delusions of grandeur..."

I KNEW he was ahead of his time.

Thanks to you, Grim and other of similar intellect for an interesting discussion.

As for Darwin, I feel he very much swam against the tide of common ideology and without the courage he had to have mustered we would've remained ignorant of natural selection for much longer. It is a pity that those who seek to disparage (for whatever reason, be it religion or just sheer ignorance) try to score points against persons of note for simply being human. Any four year old can do that.
Posted by Fractelle, Sunday, 5 April 2009 1:22:41 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
i agree with kenny and fester: i simply can't see the point of this article. R0bert may be right, that caton's point is the misrepresentation of scientific history. but he doesn't make much of a case for it here. and it doesn't explain his snide manner of judging past opinions from the perspective of the present.

grim and romany, i don't know much about this, but i suspect you may be selling lincoln short. what shorn wrote rings true to me.

the cause of the civil war may have been primarily union rather than slaves, and lincoln was definitely politically pragmatic. but the latter is not a bad thing, and does not clearly indicate lincoln's beliefs and desires. and the former has to take into account the source of the rift, and lincoln's conscious role in that rift.

romany, does it matter one jot if shakespeare was a bisexual philanderer? i presume you only raise that to indicate that it matters to those engaging in a peculiar form of idolatry.

finally, i think runner is trying to prove singlehandedly the existence of a separate, inferior race.
Posted by bushbasher, Sunday, 5 April 2009 1:53:05 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
"Perhaps instead of judging figures like Lincoln and Darwin by today's standards, we might appreciate that these figures played a role in formulating the ideas underlying our present civilisation by which so many seem to think themselves superior."

Fester,

I think it's already a fairly widely held view that both Lincoln and Darwin made great contributions - Lincoln as orator/statesman and Darwin as a thinker in science. But, just like in every other field of endeavour, it can pay to objectively look back in history at what wasn't achieved too. The detection of a double standard, for example, whether it be caused by weakness or any other reason (to a third party, the reason's irrelevant really), can provide a strong clue as to what other problems need to be fixed up. In fact, the weakness/frailty that Caton refers to can and should be the seed for the next foray into getting a better outcome for mankind as the next wave seeks to improve on the current situation.

But, how can an improvement be made if there isn't an understanding and acknowledgement of a deficiency or weakness? There are teams of journalists and commentators forensically picking apart every aspect of society every day from analysing the Nick D'arcy assault (on the ABC's Offsiders program this morning) to Kevin Rudd's treatment of a RAAF stewardess. If there are faults/weaknesses/deficiencies/etc, why shouldn't they be given a fair level of scrutiny? If Lincoln, say, made mistakes because he was human, be up front about it and get on and improve on it.
Posted by RobP, Sunday, 5 April 2009 3:05:37 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
RobP

How can Darwin or Lincoln improve themselves now that they are dead? In the case of D'arcy or Rudd, they have been involved in actions which they know to be wrong, and which are not condoned by society. They are at the water hole and need only take a drink, and I hope that they do so. In contrast, Lincoln and Darwin died long before the water hole was reached. What I take from it all is an appreciation of the great benefits that ideas and knowledge bring to a civilisation; the sense of superiority that comes with them is the downside.
Posted by Fester, Sunday, 5 April 2009 5:04:55 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
"How can Darwin or Lincoln improve themselves now that they are dead?"

It wasn't about them but about one's ability today, or society's ability collectively, to learn from the mistakes made in the past. If, for example, history views Lincoln as having been weak in some areas or of having a character flaw, it might focus in on what he wasn't able to do or was too afraid to do. Eg, society might realise the need to get in and proactively do things itself as opposed to primarily taking a passive stance by just letting a small group of luminaries talk about doing things.
Posted by RobP, Sunday, 5 April 2009 5:40:47 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
I'm late on this, mostly because this is a topic about which I know probably too much. My take is close to that of Kenny, Fester and Clownfish (who is thoroughly redeeemed in terms of understanding evolution).

Caton's always struck me as a bit of an odd bod and he has been embarrassingly wrong in the past, but he has to his very great credit the capacity for original thought. I think it's a bit of a stretch to label him a literal Creationist.

Of course Darwin and Lincoln would be considered racists in contemporary terms, as indeed would almost everybody of their class, education and nationalities in the mid-19th century. "Racial" superiority was evident in the colonial experience, which coupled with the extraordinary technological advances of the Industrial Revolution, rendered European nations literally masters of their world.

In those days, the proto-scientific perspectives that later separated ethology from ethnology were rather blurred, and it takes no great leap of the intellect to imagine how such notions of 'natural selection' and 'survival of the fittest' might be applied to political realities like the domination of one so-called 'race' (which remains a valid biological category) over all the others.

From this perspective. those societies at the apex of the global political and technological hierarchy were therefore ipso facto better adapted, and thus more evolved than their colonial subjects. It is precisely this erroneous logic that was taken up by eugenecists and is perpetuated by contemporary racists.

[cont]
Posted by CJ Morgan, Sunday, 5 April 2009 7:54:36 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
[cont]

Of course, since Darwin's and Lincoln's time, Western science and political philosophy have also 'evolved' (i.e. changed over time). Where Darwin erred his hypotheses have been rejected by scientific research. We now know that there is far more genetic variation within the so-called human races than between them. But of course Darwin knew nothing of genetics. However, that doesn't mean that the idea of human 'races' doesn't persist as a social construct.

Similarly, any 'Social Darwinist' leanings that Lincoln may have had have been eclipsed by the emergence in Western societies of democracy and universal suffrage, coupled with the historical experience of what happens in the absence of these. Western societies also evolved to develop - along with Capitalism and Liberalism - such maladaptive frameworks as Nazism, Fascism and Communism.

Anyway, it's no great revelation that Darwin and Lincoln were racists. Fortunately, we've 'evolved' intellectually and politically since then.

At least some of us have...
Posted by CJ Morgan, Sunday, 5 April 2009 7:57:29 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Bushbasher,

No, I don’t at all sell Lincoln short. My comments were all concerned with the point the author was making about judging historical figures from the perspective of our times. It is within this framework that Lincoln and Darwin are termed “racist”.

Personally, I don’t even consider them as such at all:its a term neither of them would have understood in relation to themselves at all. Perhaps, if either were interested in attaching labels to themselves they would have described themselves as humanists? (Oh damn: I’ve just used one of the red-flag words on this forum!)

I think Grim and I were allied in recognizing how contemporary societies try to fudge historical relativity with political correctness. This view, in time, becomes received opinion and is perpetuated in dramatizations or fictional representations, so that the real person becomes sanitized and history itself somewhat changed to accommodate this view.

Hence my Shakespeare comment. Of course it doesn’t matter what the man’s sexual proclivities were - nor that undoubtedly his personal hygiene left a lot to be desired; or that he suffered from feelings of social inferiority; and exhibited all the behaviour of the nouveau riche.

However, my students, who have elevated him to some sort of romantic hero, rather than a real, living man, will jump through all sorts of convoluted hoops in order to ignore these historical truths.

In fact they were all ready to accept, absolutely, that the portrait that has turned up recently claiming to be the definitive portrait, really is what it claims to be.

Did they arrive at this conclusion based on copious research into the case? Nope. Merely because in that portrait he is somewhat more hirsute than in the traditional one, and therefore more fits their romantic ideals!

Fractelle,
Yeah, I’ve often thought he would make a far better icon for the gay community than bloody Barbara Striesand or Celine Dion!
Posted by Romany, Sunday, 5 April 2009 8:50:39 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Adam,
I’ve been involved with a few evolution / creation discussions on this website. Your debating style reminds me of another person I’ve debated named AJ Philips. He too used to cry ‘liar’ and call me various names, usually whenever I made a strong point. It’s not much of a debating tactic. His name calling and colour in his choice of adjectives actually became quite useful as a gauge to how the debate was going.

But as for you ‘substantiating your charges’ against me, I can only agree that everyone else here can plainly read what has been said. And they can make up their own minds.

It goes the same for Darwin. What he has written is out there on the public record for all to see. You accuse me of trying to make him look ‘ugly’, or whatever. These are your words not mine. Even now in your last post, you are admitting that Darwin (who, according to Kenny, is the father of biology) saw other races as inferior.

I would agree with Kenny that Darwin got some things right and got some things wrong. The goal, if this discussion has any purpose at all, is to keep seeking for the truth, try to hold to what is good and eliminate the error.

As for your charges of deceit, the content of what I was saying was totally reflected in the article by Caton. So for the second time, I put it to you, if you have a complaint, why don’t you take it up with him? (Or with Grim who said something similar to what I’m saying?)

And if you can’t answer that question, can you attempt to answer this one. You say that evolution shows that we are all one race. How does evolution show this?
Posted by Dan S de Merengue, Sunday, 5 April 2009 11:59:28 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Romany,

Excuse the break, but I read the paragraph slightly differently.

The difference in semantics revolves around the word "endorse". (defined as "to give formal approval or permission") and is very different to "agrees with the principle".

Darwin noted that the process of natural selection in the human race had been subverted and agreed that eugenics (the compulsory exclusion from the gene pool of those with undesirable traits) could remedy this. However, he stated that the decision should not be forced and should be left to the conscience of the individuals.

If you read Caton's other articles, it is clear that that is exactly what he intended to say. However, even Caton is unable to produce direct evidence of Darwin actually endorsing the principle.

Today genetic testing is often used to determine whether potential parents are carriers of genes for haemophilia or SF, and they are then informed and counselled on their choices. This is pretty much what Darwin was talking about.

Eugenics would force them to be childless if they carried such a gene, which Darwin specifically said should not be done.

While DSM calls this a "slight", it would be like calling Hitler "over enthusiastic" in promotion of German interests.

Caton's previous articles in this forum are:

Darwin’s cathedral
Science & Technology - 23/02/2006 - 21 comments
Evolutionary science isn't a closed book
Education - 2/09/2005 - 188 comments

Neither of which show the impartial rigour that would be acceptable at Yale where he qualified.
Posted by Democritus, Monday, 6 April 2009 8:36:48 AM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Ah yes, creationists trying to play the man.
Firstly, Darwin was a man of faith but he let reason win out when the evidence became overwhelming. Like many, he relised that the church is the enemy of truth...but had nothing against God.

Might I point out that Jesus said to be good to your slaves...not that slavery was wrong. I don't see too many folks dissing *his* character! People of their times are restricted by their contemporaries. You cannot be *too* radical (no matter how correct) to be taken seriously.

There is no such thing as "evolutionists". Just people with more or less understanding of a process.
Saying "no such thing as evolution" to a biologist is like telling a computer programmer that binary does not exist. Frankly, only the ignorant (those who systematically ignore) can "believe" evolution (a well described *process*) does not "exist".
Once again Goddists: We do not "believe" evolution...we understand it. Darwin could be a paedophile mass murderer and it would not make his ideas one bit less valid. It's about *true thinking* not politics!
Maybe the wacko Religious Right are truly incapable of getting this? Or do they just have no concept of real truth vs church rhetoric?
We know that the whole "teach the controversy" and "creation science" institutes are part of a Neo-Lib push to counter the scientific "power base". I suspect articles like this, trying to put Darwin as some sort of athiestic saint, is part of this push. It will be the kids minds that will suffer.
Posted by Ozandy, Monday, 6 April 2009 10:14:25 AM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Actually, I think it does both Darwin and Lincoln a disservice to label them "racist".

I'd suggest that it would be far more accurate, by both today's and their contemporary standards, to call them "paternalistic".

In consideration of this debate, it's interesting to contemplate the case of Thomas Jefferson. Here was a man capable of simultaneously declaring that all men are created equal, and owning slaves.

What I find really enlightening is when Jefferson writes about his slaves; endless, seemingly bizarre ruminations on comparisons of the odours of slaves and their white masters.

Perhaps I'm being charitable, but what I see when I read such writings, are the struggles of a man trying to reconcile the commonly held wisdom of his era - that the black races were clearly inferior to the white - with what niggling his conscience: That all men were indeed created equal.
Posted by Clownfish, Monday, 6 April 2009 10:21:55 AM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
There is always a superior section within all species, it's how evolution works. During the evolution of humans, there have been many variants which have disappeared by extinction, mainly through integration. This allows the species to evolve using the best aspects of each different variant. That's what I understood the author of the thread to be talking about from the very start, nothing to do with the bizarre creationist babble or the elitist values of some varieties of humans being superior. In a few thousand years if humanity survives, science may well be trying to figure out how the current indigenous sections of humanity disappeared so quickly and may also be looking for a missing link. However I believe if humans survive the next 10 years, we will have evolved beyond the primitive god and creationist delusions.

For the first time more Australian indigenous are in relationships with non Aboriginals, meaning in a few generations they as a separate section of humanity will disappear. Is the Aryan race more superior then others, no but some sections of it may be more evolved, or using better words, equipped to evolve the race into the future. Whilst others, stay trapped in their ideological pasts. In all sections of the human race, you will find superior understanding, those who reject it and those who make up the numbers. It's a balance, which allows species to determine which path forward will actually enhance the specie and which will stagnate it into oblivion. We are at the point now and it probably began with Darwin and is now at it's peak. Those rejecting evolution cling desperately to their dying past, whilst the evolving desperately seek answers for our self created dilemma's and the numbers fuel the fires of both camps.

God and it's belief is a primitive superstition, fuelled by deception and a desperate fear of unfolding understanding which leads to evolutionary jumps.

What I get from the article is, you can have superior understanding, but you must have equality of life and not the other way round. Something creationists and other ideologists can't abide.
Posted by stormbay, Monday, 6 April 2009 11:58:17 AM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
stormbay, you make the common mistake of assuming that evolution works by selecting a "superior" section within species. What is meant by "survival of the fittest" is that some individuals will be better adapted to their environment, and thus more likely to survive and reproduce.

It has nothing to do with any supposed "superiority". Indeed, as environments change, traits that were previously advantageous may no longer be. Conversely, previously disadvantageous traits may now assist the individual to survive.

To take the classic, high-school biology example of the Pepper Moth, as Industrial-Era soot darkened tree trunks, the darker moths, who had beforehand stood out more obviously against pale tree trunks, were suddenly better camouflaged, and began to rapidly out-survive their paler cousins.

Another case in point: Are bacteria superior to hominids? If you were to define evolutionary superiority by longevity (ie of a species/genus/family) and population numbers, bacteria are the clear winners. After all, they're the ones who've been here for billions of years, and populated pretty much every environment on the planet.

As for "indigenous sections of humanity": an Australian Aboriginal is exactly the same species as a French European, and both are exactly the same species as an ancient Sumerian.

We're all members of the species Homo Sapiens.
Posted by Clownfish, Monday, 6 April 2009 2:42:35 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
[b]Clownfish[/b], please read what I write, before assuming I have said something when I had not. My post relates to a superior understanding of the world, a mental aspect of humanity. Just as there are superior biological or physical sections of humanity at any one time, which I was not talking about. A superior mind does not necessarily go with a superior body, in fact we may find if you've got a good brain, you may have a weak body. However I should have been more specific, so some don't try to manipulate my words or misunderstand. I probably have a good idea of evolutionary biology, as I've undertaken tertiary studies in cultural anthropology and psychology.

As one who carries both Palawa and Koori in my genetics, I am well aware of human status and how ideologists view evolution. The Australian indigenous are far superior to Aryans when it come to many understandings in life and physical prowess. The first Aryans who came here had more technological understanding and force, but they lacked the superior life and ecological understanding of the inhabitants and still do. Now the indigenous have both the physical and mental understanding, so who is actually the most evolved, those who destroy, or those who support life. It is the mind which makes the difference in the end, as it forces change and so, evolution.

Superior understanding or ability, only relates to outcomes. You can only define an event as an evolutionary step, by the outcome. For humanity to evolve, we need a balance of equality of life and accept we may all be at different levels of evolution, but in the same time scale. They are all important to us and in a future without the variations, we would all be the same and very vulnerable to extinction. Nothing is good or bad, just evolving. The only thing which doesn't evolve is god and creationism, as we see by the outcomes, they will become extinct, as have all previous fear based superstitious ideologies. That will be a real mental evolution and a big step forward.
Posted by stormbay, Monday, 6 April 2009 4:14:38 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
what a w(profanity deleted)er.
Posted by Grim, Monday, 6 April 2009 8:09:59 PM
Find out more about this user Visit this user's webpage Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Yes, but by similar criteria, Caton's article is a w(profanity deleted)k.

However, you have to concede that they're both interesting versions thereof :D
Posted by CJ Morgan, Monday, 6 April 2009 8:41:09 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Democritus,
I feel that you have missed Romany’s point. You focus on the meaning of the word endorse. I think Romany appreciates this word, but the question is exactly what did Darwin endorse. Romany interpreted Caton as saying that Darwin did not endorse the practice of eugenics. So it appears to me that you are arguing with someone with whom you are in agreement.

Earlier you made an aside that Darwin, had he been alive today, would see Caton sued for libel for his allegations of Darwin endorsing eugenics. Is this another example of time travel ethics, where Darwin would have been angered enough to sue Caton because of what we think of eugenics under today’s social sensibilities? In the late 19th Century there were quite a few in influential spheres who didn’t think eugenics was such a bad idea.

Would Darwin have sued for being associated with a practice for which his own cousin is credited as being primary advocate? Who knows?

Some argue that if Lance Armstrong was born a horse he would have won a lot of Kentucky Derbies.
Posted by Dan S de Merengue, Monday, 6 April 2009 10:41:05 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
DSM,

Whilst I probably was a bit extreme in calling HC a liar, the extract:

"Darwin surmised, by eugenic measures proposed by his cousin, Francis Galton. These he endorsed, but expressed his misgiving that they probably wouldn’t succeed"

Is difficult to interpret any other way than Darwin endorsed eugenics.

HC has in previously published articles tried to assert the same thing based on the tenuous lack of recorded evidence of Darwin repudiating a comment by a french translator of Darwin's work that he supported eugenics.

That there is recorded evidence that he did not support it has been convieniently neglected.

Whilst this might seem a storm in a tea cup, there is a trend amongst teachers of creationism and ID to assert that as Darwin and Hitler were proponents of eugenics, that evolution is an evil.

That is why I get irritated with otherwise reputable people peddling falsehoods.
Posted by Democritus, Tuesday, 7 April 2009 9:44:48 AM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Democritus,

Yes, as Dan said, despite the difference in deconstructing the cited contentious paragraph, we both have landed in the same place. I certainly gained no impression that Darwin supported eugenics in the manner which you felt was inferred. You also, though from more evidence and research, share this pov.

However, I sympathise if this is part of a bone of contention in relation to Caton. I too have certain figures whom I have researched extensively and get not simply irritated but almost apopleptic when they are seemingly deliberately misrepresented!
Posted by Romany, Tuesday, 7 April 2009 4:03:57 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Darwin made reference in his Descent of Man to the efficacy of what he called hybridism, that offspring of related 'races' or varieties were usually stronger, more disease-resistant and, in the case of humans, better-looking and stronger than either of their parents: he makes the point that Persian kings went out of their way to have children by women from non-Persian groups, and remarks somewhere (I can't actually find it but I'm sure it's there) on the practice of European aristocracy of marrying commoners in order to re-invigorate their genetic inheritance, specifically to avoid degeneration. The Byzantine emperors certainly practiced this principle enthusiastically. Darwin's notion of natural selection certainly did not focus on intra-group selection, in fact he seemed to suggest that that was a sure way for a species to become extinct. Hence the universal human practice of out-group marriage and Darwin cites many examples of this with approval.

My understanding is that pretty much everybody was a eugenicist in the twenties: Bolsheviks, H.G. Wells, Tittmuss, G.B. Shaw, various fascists and racists, the US government, all seeking some version or other of 'The New Man' (which all, regrettably, involved the extirpation of 'The Old Man' in the quest for a Utopia). And the first International Eugenics Conference wasn't held in the late nineteenth century, or even in the 1910s or 1920s, but in Hawai'i in 1937. So such racism is a much later, more prevalent and much more recent phenomenon than is usually supposed.
Posted by Loudmouth, Wednesday, 8 April 2009 11:51:31 AM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
  1. Pages:
  2. 1
  3. 2
  4. 3
  5. ...
  6. 6
  7. 7
  8. 8
  9. All

About Us :: Search :: Discuss :: Feedback :: Legals :: Privacy