Was Darwin a racist?

truthteller · May 30, 2005

According to Darwin in his book "The Origin of Species: By Means of Natural Selection or the Preservation of Favoured Races in the Struggle for Life" each race shows different stages of evolution and by that some races have progressed at a higher level than others.

He claimed that his "survival of the fittest" theory applied to humans also.

By these claims would Darwin be conisidered a racist or was it just "fact" in his eyes?

CAPNCRUNCH · May 30, 2005

Was Jimmy "the Greek" correct or just a bad drunk? Trivia: Does anyone remember the name of the restaurant where Jimmy "the Greek" got ambushed by the camera crew? Hint: It is or was in Washington DC .:drink:

Aquatic · May 30, 2005

Only someone who frequents all those DC watering holes would know about that old Greek fact. :103631605

CAPNCRUNCH · May 30, 2005

Aquatic said:
Only someone who frequents all those DC watering holes would know about that old Greek fact.

The watering hole/restaurant in question is no more. The closest place to it now is The Palm. Have seen Hillary there as well as Tony Kornheiser.:drink:

DarrylParsons · May 30, 2005

truthteller said:
According to Darwin in his book "The Origin of Species: By Means of Natural Selection or the Preservation of Favoured Races in the Struggle for Life" each race shows different stages of evolution and by that some races have progressed at a higher level than others.

He claimed that his "survival of the fittest" theory applied to humans also.

By these claims would Darwin be conisidered a racist or was it just "fact" in his eyes?

Absolutely not! Collecting data and scientifically proving that races are different is NOT racism, despite what a large percentage of leftists like to think (and disgustingly dishonestly try to make US think!)

Another unabomber quote can help put into perspective why leftists are so dangerous to humanity on race issues:

From the Manifesto, article 21:
21. Leftists may claim that their activism is motivated by compassion or by moral principle, and moral principle does play a role for the leftist of the oversocialized type. But compassion and moral principle cannot be the main motives for leftist activism. Hostility is too prominent a component of leftist behavior; so is the drive for power. Moreover, much leftist behavior is not rationally calculated to be of benefit to the people whom the leftists claim to be trying to help. For example, if one believes that affirmative action is good for black people, does it make sense to demand affirmative action in hostile or dogmatic terms? Obviously it would be more productive to take a diplomatic and conciliatory approach that would make at least verbal and symbolic concessions to white people who think that affirmative action discriminates against them. But leftist activists do not take such an approach because it would not satisfy their emotional needs. Helping black people is not their real goal. Instead, race problems serve as an excuse for them to express their own hostility and frustrated need for power. In doing so they actually harm black people, because the activists' hostile attitude toward the white majority tends to intensify race hatred.

nimue77 · May 30, 2005

Trying to prove or disprove it doesnt make him a racist. Whatever the case, the man was brilliant. I can't believe some people still continue to deny that macro-evolution is real.

Darryl Parsons said:
Absolutely not! Collecting data and scientifically proving that races are different is NOT racism, despite what a large percentage of leftists like to think (and disgustingly dishonestly try to make US think!)

Another unabomber quote can help put into perspective why leftists are so dangerous to humanity on race issues:

From the Manifesto, article 21:
21. Leftists may claim that their activism is motivated by compassion or by moral principle, and moral principle does play a role for the leftist of the oversocialized type. But compassion and moral principle cannot be the main motives for leftist activism. Hostility is too prominent a component of leftist behavior; so is the drive for power. Moreover, much leftist behavior is not rationally calculated to be of benefit to the people whom the leftists claim to be trying to help. For example, if one believes that affirmative action is good for black people, does it make sense to demand affirmative action in hostile or dogmatic terms? Obviously it would be more productive to take a diplomatic and conciliatory approach that would make at least verbal and symbolic concessions to white people who think that affirmative action discriminates against them. But leftist activists do not take such an approach because it would not satisfy their emotional needs. Helping black people is not their real goal. Instead, race problems serve as an excuse for them to express their own hostility and frustrated need for power. In doing so they actually harm black people, because the activists' hostile attitude toward the white majority tends to intensify race hatred.

eek. · May 30, 2005

I don't think natural selection has so much to do with the human race nowadays, things are more like the period of the Roman Empire.
We are in a false market as far as natural selection is concerned.

Muppets like Nero or Bush are still around, and they are hardly the cutting edge of superiority and intellect.
Technical superiority has given definite advantages for various groups, from the Greeks and Egyptians, through the Romans to us today.

To date, all technically superior societies have lasted less than 1000 years.

In any case, technically superior societies tend to focus towards un-natural selection because they favour their own tribe.

Natural selection is being confused with the ability to annihilate.

Additionally humans can consciously annihilate another race or creature, like with Hitler and his buddies getting the Jews.

Using this kind of logic, the AIDS virus is vastly superior to the human race...

We are comparing apples and wheelnuts IMO.

DarrylParsons · May 30, 2005

Democracy actually works against evolution since it gives power to the mediocre masses, encourages the weak to multiply as they are helped along by the system, and punishes the strong and able-bodied by taxing them and restricting their freedoms giving them less motivation to have offspring.

Nonetheless, evolutionary forces are still there and are slowly but surely working their magic and eventually democratic systems will implode on themselves just as the Roman Empire did.

To say the AIDS virus is ahead of us is ludicrous since we have the power to eliminate it (by radically changing lifestyles and demographics probably using force that liberals would never agree with), yet the AIDS virus has no such power over us. It's smart enough to not listen to liberals because it discriminates heavily on who it attacks, but it is nowhere near as smart as humans as a whole, especially conservatives whose lifestyle choices automatically (as if by magic

) drastically reduce the probability of contracting it.

eek. · May 30, 2005

Democracy already imploded a while back.
We got the wonders of Facism and Communism to replace them and the barrel of laffs they created.
Of course you might prefer some religious whack job system

, there's plenty to choose from.

Whatever happens next there's way too many warm bodies for those fairy dust housie on the prairie systems and nowadays modern nukes prevent things from getting too heated if there is any conflict.

Out of the entire pile of idiots that calls itself the human race (me included) you Libertarians are the biggest bunch of no hoper dreamers out of the lot of us.
You've managed to build absolutely diddly, except a pile of monologues and books.
The best the Unabomber came up with....was a monologue and to kill a bunch of people. This apparently, is hero material.

Did he try to build anything with his vision?
Did 'e fuk.

We've got the means for mass production, efficient transportation, communications, healthcare, infrastructue etc etc and meanwhile you Libertarians are STILL poncing about in fairyland...whilst living snug and safe in democracyville and its mixed system.

You Libertarians are a lot like those dudes who are waiting for aliens to rescue them.
...waiting and waiting and waiting for that spaceship to come...
The rapture ready Libertarians

Meanwhile, in realworldsville, us little people will get on with getting the stuff that needs done, done.

DarrylParsons · May 30, 2005

eek. said:
Democracy already imploded a while back.

You'd better tell that to the voters 'cause silly them -- they keep lining up to place the ballots thinking they'll get counted.

Out of the entire pile of idiots that calls itself the human race (me included) you Libertarians are the biggest bunch of no hoper dreamers out of the lot of us.

I agree that libertarians haven't got a clue. It's the have-your-cake-and-eat-it-too ideology which in the real world full of real people and real tangible stuff simply cannot work.

If you want to put me in a category, call me a right-wing extremist but please don't use any of the "L" words, ok?

The unabomber may not have accomplished much else besides his manifesto, but he is very intelligent and hits the nail on the head on a lot of issues that people either haven't thought about or haven't dared to talk about because of all of modern society's bs taboos. It offers a very refreshing perspective for any individual thinker who is capable of questioning authority and who desires some degree of autonomy in this crazy modern world.

If OTOH you are satisfied being a drone and letting the ever-benevolent system (yeah right) take care of you and even think for you, then the manifesto is not for you.

CAPNCRUNCH · May 31, 2005

Darryl Parsons said:
You'd better tell that to the voters 'cause silly them -- they keep lining up to place the ballots thinking they'll get counted.

QUOTE] Just dont count on your vote being counted in a state where the Presidents brother rules!:sad3:

truthteller · May 31, 2005

Darryl Parsons said:
Absolutely not! Collecting data and scientifically proving that races are different is NOT racism, despite what a large percentage of leftists like to think (and disgustingly dishonestly try to make US think!)

So if a person believes blacks are less intelligent than whites based on social factors not evolution does that make that person a racist?

DarrylParsons · May 31, 2005

If he's got data to support the claim and if it's based on unbiased observation, then I'd say it's not racist.

The usual definition of "racist" involves prejudice ie. assuming something before you have any evidence or deliberately distorting evidence to support a pre-conceived idea. If you are being fair and only stating what evidence and experience supports, nothing more and nothing less, then you're not being racist, even if some of those statements disappoint some leftists.

edub69 · Jun 1, 2005

If you think one group of people is "less evolved" than another and you hate them because of it, then you are a racist - i.e. making all the blacks sit at the back of the bus. If, for whatever reason, you perceive one group to be different from another, without malice, and you want to know why, then you are not a racist.

Obviously the true motive behind the question was to try to discredit Darwin, because the poster happens to be a rapture Christian and would love nothing more than for everyone to say, "you're right, Darwin was a racist, evolution must be bogus".

How about this question- If you believe that gays should not have the same right as heterosexuals to get married, does that make you an anti-gay bigot or merely an evangelical Christian? Or are those actually the same thing?

DarrylParsons · Jun 1, 2005

How about this question- If you believe that gays should not have the same right as heterosexuals to get married, does that make you an anti-gay bigot or merely an evangelical Christian? Or are those actually the same thing?

Are you implying here that just having a position on a political issue automatically puts you in one of those categories?

The original question by TT sounded serious but this one looks like a cheap jab to me.

edub69 · Jun 1, 2005

Darryl Parsons said:
Are you implying here that just having a position on a political issue automatically puts you in one of those categories?

The original question by TT sounded serious but this one looks like a cheap jab to me.

You're right, it was kind of a cheap jab. But every post I've ever read by Truthteller in this forum seems to have an underlying anti-evolution theme inspired by evangelical Christianity. I don't really consider all Christians to be bigots, in fact most people that I know who are devoted to their religion are less likely to be bigoted in general, which is why it seems like a huge paradox for me that the anti-gay marriage agenda seems to originate from religious groups.

In reality, I do consider the denial of equal rights to a large group of people to be blatant bigotry, no matter how you try to spin it - defense of marriage, etc, I don't buy any of it. Since we were discussing racism already I thought I would bring up something that I consider a close cousin of racism.

truthteller · Jun 1, 2005

edub69 said:
If you think one group of people is "less evolved" than another and you hate them because of it, then you are a racist - i.e. making all the blacks sit at the back of the bus. If, for whatever reason, you perceive one group to be different from another, without malice, and you want to know why, then you are not a racist.

one to say, "you're right, Darwin was a racist, evolution must be bogus".

How about this question- If you believe that gays should not have the same right as heterosexuals to get married, does that make you an anti-gay bigot or merely an evangelical Christian? Or are those actually the same thing?

My post was not to discredit Darwin but I found it interesting that the people believing in evolution are mostly the liberals who are all for affirmative action etc..

How would they reconcile affirmative action with believing in Darwin if we are not all equal?

BTW, would it make me a bigot if I don't believe that 3 women and 1 man should not have the right to marry?

edub69 · Jun 1, 2005

truthteller said:
My post was not to discredit Darwin but I found it interesting that the people believing in evolution are mostly the liberals who are all for affirmative action etc..

How would they reconcile affirmative action with believing in Darwin if we are not all equal?

BTW, would it make me a bigot if I don't believe that 3 women and 1 man should not have the right to marry?

Most people that believe in evolution are liberals? What you really mean is that most people who DON'T believe in evolution are religious conservatives.

If we are all not equal, then that would be an even greater reason for affirmative action - the lesser ones would need more of a helping hand to be be brought up to speed with the rest of our society. Darwin didn't say that we would have to be permanently unequal, only that at the point he was observing things, certain groups had evolved more slowly than others. So affirmative action would be a program that is meant to counteract the effects of social Darwinism, so that people who are allegedly lower on the evolution scale don't stay there permanently.

As far as the comment about marriage between three women and one man, that's not really relevant to the gay marriage debate. I don't know of any groups who are specifically looking for the right to have marriage between three women and one man. Not that it should bother you anyway, because it would have no effect on your life whatsoever. Gays, on the other hand, are a group of people that make up 1/10 of the population, and who I believe are being actively discriminated against. I don't know why anyone cares whether they get married, maybe you can help me out with this. Are you afraid more people will become gay if gay marriage is institutionalized? If you really wanted to "protect the institution of marriage", as many politicians say, why isn't adultery, one of the ten commandments, a crime? I'll answer the second question for you - it's twofold. First, that would be making a specific religious doctrine part of the laws of our country, something that our nation prides itself on NOT doing. Second, so many people commit adultery, even those who reside in the so-called moral majority, that 1/4 of the population would be locked up if adultery were a crime.

CAPNCRUNCH · Jun 1, 2005

CAPN CRUNCH said:
Was Jimmy "the Greek" correct or just a bad drunk? Trivia: Does anyone remember the name of the restaurant where Jimmy "the Greek" got ambushed by the camera crew? Hint: It is or was in Washington DC .:drink:

Duke Zeibert's is the restaurant in question if anyone was wondering.:drink:

arty:

DarrylParsons · Jun 1, 2005

edub69 said:
Gays, on the other hand, are a group of people that make up 1/10 of the population, and who I believe are being actively discriminated against. I don't know why anyone cares whether they get married, maybe you can help me out with this. Are you afraid more people will become gay if gay marriage is institutionalized?

I'll tell you what my main concern is with it, and I don't think it has anything to do with bigotry...

I see it creating big demand for adoptions which could easily turn children into a commodity to be bought and sold. If experience proves me wrong, then I may change my mind, but it seems pretty likely to me and not terribly desirable for anyone, including the gay couples.