reply to post by EndOfTheWorld7
I take it you haven't read the book by Charles Darwin called The Origin of Species by Means of Natural Selection, or the Preservation of Favoured
Races in the Struggle for Life.
Yes the book says white people are a advanced race and black people are ape like animals.
Clearly you haven't either. "Origin of Species"
says nothing of the sort, in fact Darwin steered clear of commenting on mankind in that book
altogether, knowing that the theory was controversial enough without bringing man into the picture. It was his opponents that brought mankind into the
That Darwin was a racist is nasty propaganda perpetrated by perverted, evil souled hypocrites, whose sole purpose is to deny
the beauty of the
universe they claim was created by the God they profess to worship, or alternatively by perverted, evil souled hypocrites who seek a justification for
their own racist, filthy, minds.
That Darwin lived a privileged life in a society that held a general belief that the white European held a privileged, superior position relative to
the other peoples of the world, cannot be denied. And that he consistently and repeatedly discussed the fallacy of this supposed superiority is
Please review this definitive essay: The Mis-portrayal of Darwin as a Racist
Various popular beliefs about humans during the 1800s included the beliefs that:
* Whites, Blacks, American Indians, and Asians are all different species
* The races are static and created by God, and should thus never be mixed
* There are superior and inferior races and the superior whites have the right to dominate the inferior blacks and Indians
* There are distinct delineations between the races
* Different races are not related to each other
* Interbreeding of races leads to degeneration
* God originally created civilization and whites have stayed true to God, thus maintaining civilization, but the darker races have degenerated and
lost civilization as they have become more savage and further from the word of God
* Darker races are descendants of Canaan (Ham's Curse), the darker their skin the more inherently sinful they are
How, then, do Darwin's views compare to the existing views on race during his own time?
Darwin's View of Race
In contrast to the existing views on race, Darwin showed that:
* People cannot be classified as different species
* All races are related and have a common ancestry
* All people come from "savage" origins
* The different races have much more in common than was widely believed
* The mental capabilities of all races are virtually the same and there is greater variation within races than between races
* Different races of people can interbreed and there is no concern for ill effects
* Culture, not biology, accounted for the greatest differences between the races
* Races are not distinct, but rather they blend together
"At some future period, not very distant as measured by centuries, the civilized races of man will certainly exterminate, and replace, the savage
races throughout the world...The break between man and his nearest allies will be then wider, for it will intervene between man in a more civilized
state...and some Ape as low as a Baboon, instead of as now between the Negro or Australian and the Gorilla."
Charles Darwin, 1890
That MISQUOTE is from the book "The Descent of Man, and Selection in Relation to Sex"
, published in 1871
. Clearly you haven't read
that either because you got the date wrong and completely misunderstood the context. In fact, I'll go so far as to say you probably lifted the
quotation from one of the propaganda sites perpetrated by perverted, evil souled hypocrites, whose sole purpose is to deny
the beauty of the
universe they claim was created by the God they profess to worship.
Please review this essay: Myth 7: Darwin thought that
Australian aborigines were closer to apes than to Europeans
The full quotation, before being hacked by those perverts in order slander Darwin is:
The great break in the organic chain between man and his nearest allies, which cannot be bridged over by any extinct or living species, has often been
advanced as a grave objection to the belief that man is descended from some lower form; but this objection will not appear of much weight to those
who, convinced by general reasons, believe in the general principle of evolution. Breaks incessantly occur in all parts of the series, some being
wide, sharp and defined, others less so in various degrees; as between the orang and its nearest allies—between the Tarsius and the other Lemuridæ
[JSW: Tarsiers and Lemurs]—between the elephant and in a more striking manner between the Ornithorhynchus [JSW: platypus] or Echidna, and other
mammals. But all these breaks depend merely on the number of related forms which have become extinct. At some future period, not very distant as
measured by centuries, the civilised races of man will almost certainly exterminate and replace throughout the world the savage races. At the same
time the anthropomorphous apes, as Professor Schaaffhausen has remarked, will no doubt be exterminated. The break will then be rendered wider, for it
will intervene between man in a more civilised state, as we may hope, than the Caucasian, and some ape as low as a baboon, instead of as at present
between the negro or Australian and the gorilla.
He is specifically discussing why we should not
expect to see a continuous chain of "missing links" from one species to the other; in direct
contrast to the Larmarkian view that we should
expect to see all the links. You may notice that this is still a bone of contention between
science and anti-science.
He is clearly saying that as 'savage' races die out or are assimilated into the 'superior' races (another widely held assumption at the time), and
the great apes likewise die out, we will have less of a living record of evolutionary diversity. That is, at that future time there will be a larger
'break' between mankind's nearest relatives than there is now, simply because our currently closest relatives will have gone extinct.
That he seems to refer to Negroes and Australian Aborigines as closer to the gorilla than the Caucasian is to the baboon, is an unfortunate turn of
phrase, and one which I can find no precedence for anywhere else in Darwin's work. As Wilkins says in the linked essay, it does seem to be
unnecessary and perhaps stems from a 'cultural' racism not a 'biological' one. In short he is a European and a product of his time.
You really should try to come to discussions with more than one-eyed, cut-and-pasted B.S. propaganda lies to support your position. Especially without
checking them for veracity and coherence. I realize this may be difficult, because you don't seem to have a position that could withstand that sort
of a filter, so I'll leave the resolution of that dilemma to you.