[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...

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!

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?

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.

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.

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.