Hi David,

No, Darwin didn't: check out his "Descent of Man" where he praises inter-mixing - 'hybrid vigour', he called it. He said nothing about any hierarchy of races, but he did write about diminution by in-breeding, particularly in relation to Europe's royal families.

You're mixing him up with Spencer, and the gaggle of Social-Darwinists who twisted his theories one and two generations later. Darwin coined the term, 'struggle for survival', and applied it only to Nature; Spencer coined the term, 'survival of the fittest' and applied it to humanity. Big difference, but understandable :)

As for random killing of Aborigines, that didn't seem to happen here in SA, from the record. The last Aboriginal person executed for murder was hanged in 1862. The last white man executed for murder was hanged in 1964. 1862. 1964. The list of Aboriginal people executed is on my web-site: www.firstsources.info, second page.

In NSW, I understand that nine whites were hanged in 1839 for the murder of a group of Aborigines. Fair enough.

In SA, in the nineteenth century, if an interpreter couldn't be found for an Aboriginal man charged with murder (in a couple of cases, mass murder), then the Crown Solicitor's advice was to let him go. After al, Aboriginal people were British subjects and were entitled to the protections of the British law. Yes, I'm serious.

Please, no more top of the head stuff.

Can we also please stop trying to apologise for the Islamo-fascists by trying to point out how evil other people have been throughout human history ? It proves nothing. What is evil now, today ? How to oppose it ?

Joe

Dear Loudmouth,

I haven't confused anything. Darwin recognised all humans as belonging to the same species. That has nothing to do with Spencer or survival of the fittest. Before Darwin the prevailing scientific view was that the various humans they divided into races were of different species.

david f,

You said, " Before Darwin published the prevailing view was that the different races of humans were of different species. If one killed an ...."

I can see where confusion with your above statement could arise, a comma after published would make a world of difference, its lack dose make for ambiguity.
I read it as you intended but....

Dear Is Mise,

For want of a comma the meaning was ambiguous. Point taken. Thank you.

Sorry, David, I didn't notice the 'before' Darwin. 'After' as well :)

Still, I'm not so sure - in the 'Report of the Parliamentary Select Committee on Aboriginal Tribes, (British Settlements.), 1834' [available on my website: www.firstsources.info] (is this man entirely shameless?!) all the references along those lines speak of 'humanity' and 'the human race'. Quite a fascinating document, 140 pages.

But yes, at time passed, between 1860 and 1930 in particular, different people were classified by a few eugenicists as being akin to different species. Of course, it was clear that inter-breeding was entirely possible, it was happening after all, and nobody ever seemed to deny that it was happening.

In Australia, a small worry later was whether or not inter-mixing could produce 'throw-backs', especially around the 1930s, when assimilation policies were being developed: in 1938-1939, Norman Tindale was contracted to visit almost every community in Australia to see if that had happened. I typed up his final paper once, but mislaid it. I think I also put it on a Macintosh floppy, but can't read it. Bloody technology.

Some of the British ministers in the 1830s and 1840s were insistent that Aboriginal people were to be recognised as British subjects. When the Citizenship Act was passed in 1948, yes 1948, Aboriginal people also became citizens, at least in theory.

Cheers,

Joe

'".... If one killed an Aborigine it was not murder as they were not human...."'

very much like the unborn babies today