Go Back   Great Lakes 4x4. The largest offroad forum in the Midwest > General 4x4 Stuff > Politics, Government, or Religion Chat
GL4x4 Live! GL4x4 Casino

Politics, Government, or Religion Chat Bring your flamesuit!







Search
Reply
 
Thread Tools
Old November 18th, 2009, 07:35 PM   #1
Mr Toes - R.I.P.
November 7, 1958 - July 22, 2011
 
Mr Toes - R.I.P.'s Avatar
 
Join Date: 07-29-07
Location: Belleville Mi
Posts: 4,727
iTrader: (1)
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Default Racism linked to Darwin

I don't want to mention any names but this might explain a few things regarding, well we know who.




Evolution: Basis for Racism!


--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

By Dr. Don Boys


Darwin and his disciples were not only pseudo-scientists, but they were also radical, rabid racists! Ernst Haeckel was a German biologist, and a contemporary of Darwin, who laid the foundation of racism and imperialism that resulted in Hitler's racist regime.

Edward Simon, a Jewish biology professor at Purdue University, wrote, "I don't claim that Darwin and his theory of evolution brought on the holocaust; but I cannot deny that the theory of evolution, and the atheism it engendered, led to the moral climate that made a holocaust possible."

I wonder what the "climate" is doing to students in public schools (isn't someone one here a school teacher)as they are taught they came from animals and are without any purpose in life? Could the incredible number and depth of our social problems be the result of Darwinism? I am convinced this is so, for if one believes that life has no purpose, and man came from beasts, then dignity, fairness, kindness, honesty, faithfulness and justice have no relevance and importance.

Sir Arthur Keith, a well-known evolutionist, assessed Darwin's impact on Hitler and Germany: "We see Hitler devoutly convinced that evolution produces the only real basis for a national policy....The means he adopted to secure the destiny of his race and people were organized slaughter which has drenched Europe in blood."

The unreasonable, unbiblical, unscientific philosophy of Darwin and his disciples laid a foundation for hundreds of years of hatred, barbarity and unbelief reaching into the future and impacting millions of innocent lives.

If Darwin were alive today, he would be hooted out of the scientific community because he was not a trained scientist and because of his outrageous views about black people. Darwin thought that blacks were closer to man's ape "ancestors" than the white race! Wonder what Jesse Jackson thinks of that?

Darwin's disciple, T. H. Huxley, wrote, "It may be quite true that some negroes [sic] are better than some white men, but no rational man, cognizant of the facts, believes that the average negro [sic] is the equal, still less the superior, of the average white man....The highest places in the hierarchy of civilization will assuredly not be within the reach of our dusky cousins...." (I "siced" the above places not because he used the term, negro but because he did not capitalize it.)

"Dusky cousins!" How would that be received down at the National Association for the Advancement of Colored People? But it gets worse. Henry Osborne, who was professor of biology and zoology at Columbia University, said that blacks were further back on the evolutionary ladder (nearer the apes) than whites, and "The standard of intelligence of the average adult "insert racial slur here" is similar to that of the eleven-year-old youth of the species Homo sapiens." Blacks aren't human! Wow! the most KKK nut doesn't believe that!

Edwin Conklin, professor of biology at Princeton University and president of the American Association for the Advancement of Science, said that blacks had not evolved as far as whites and "Every consideration should lead those who believe in the superiority of the white race to strive to preserve its purity and to establish and maintain the segregation of the races, for the longer this is maintained, the greater the preponderance of the white race will be." Well, there goes any possibility of Ed ever becoming a life member of the NAACP. Too bad.

The major haters of the last 100 years have been evolutionists. Men like Nietzsche (who often said God was dead, called for the breeding of a master race, and for the annihilation of millions of misfits), Hitler, Mussolini, Marx, Engels, and Stalin were all outspoken evolutionists, and these people and their theories have been responsible for the slaughter of multi-millions of people, and the destruction of freedom all over the earth. It is amazing that so many liberals, radicals, fascists, communists and the easily impressed worship at Darwin's shrine.

Yes, the foundation of racism, hatred and violence in the last hundred years is based in evolutionary teaching
Mr Toes - R.I.P. is offline   Reply With Quote
Old November 19th, 2009, 04:34 PM   #2
aber61
Senior Member
 
aber61's Avatar
 
Join Date: 09-22-08
Location: Commerce Twp. Michigan
Posts: 6,078
iTrader: (3)
Mentioned: 2 Post(s)
Default

I have heard this before and believe it to be true. Once you convince students to believe that they are no better than the animals then what is the use to think of ourselves as special. We are better than the animals and are here to use this earth and everything in it for our purpose. All that you see was put here for us to have dominion over.
aber61 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old November 19th, 2009, 05:02 PM   #3
DuffMan
Your Message Here
 
DuffMan's Avatar
 
Join Date: 11-05-05
Location: The Ile of Grosse
Posts: 5,836
iTrader: (11)
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Default

Reminds me of my favorite pseudo-intellectual bumper sticker: "Evolution is a theory, just like gravity". Silly liberal arts majors. Gravity is a physical law, not a theory - it can be observed and measured. Evolution is still a theory because while it can be demonstrated at times, there are still gaps (although they are shrinking) that prevent it's being conclusively demonstrated.

Oh, and blaming Darwin for eugenics - the real thing Hitler and his ilk believed in - is a stretch. Evolution certainly spawned eugneics, so there is an contributory link...
__________________
This is the Pub. Leave common sense at the door.
DuffMan is offline   Reply With Quote
Old November 19th, 2009, 10:52 PM   #4
L4CX
Out for the Summer!
 
L4CX's Avatar
 
Join Date: 11-16-07
Location: Hillsdale, MI
Posts: 4,913
iTrader: (5)
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by aber61 View Post
I have heard this before and believe it to be true. Once you convince students to believe that they are no better than the animals then what is the use to think of ourselves as special. We are better than the animals and are here to use this earth and everything in it for God's Purpose All that you see was put here for us to have dominion over.
Fixed it for you.

Quote:
Originally Posted by DuffMan View Post
Reminds me of my favorite pseudo-intellectual bumper sticker: "Evolution is a theory, just like gravity". Silly liberal arts majors. Gravity is a physical law, not a theory - it can be observed and measured. Evolution is still a theory because while it can be demonstrated at times, there are still gaps (although they are shrinking) that prevent it's being conclusively demonstrated.

Oh, and blaming Darwin for eugenics - the real thing Hitler and his ilk believed in - is a stretch. Evolution certainly spawned eugneics, so there is an contributory link...


Darwinian thinking spawned the ideas that Hitler used to "purge" the world of the jews. Think of it like any other Extremist. Suicide bomber, Crusades, It's not different except it's not connected to a Religion. But, if you think about it, According to Darwin's ideas, Eugenics really is the way to go.
L4CX is offline   Reply With Quote
Old November 19th, 2009, 11:06 PM   #5
Nuggets
I fix stuff!
 
Nuggets's Avatar
 
Join Date: 09-15-06
Location: Bay City, MI
Posts: 13,380
iTrader: (13)
Mentioned: 2 Post(s)
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by DuffMan View Post
Reminds me of my favorite pseudo-intellectual bumper sticker: "Evolution is a theory, just like gravity". Silly liberal arts majors. Gravity is a physical law, not a theory - it can be observed and measured. Evolution is still a theory because while it can be demonstrated at times, there are still gaps (although they are shrinking) that prevent it's being conclusively demonstrated.

Oh, and blaming Darwin for eugenics - the real thing Hitler and his ilk believed in - is a stretch. Evolution certainly spawned eugneics, so there is an contributory link...
I love you. You may ravage my mangina at your will.
Nuggets is offline   Reply With Quote
Old November 20th, 2009, 07:48 AM   #6
mikesova
My 4x4 is a Subaru.
 
mikesova's Avatar
 
Join Date: 11-05-05
Location: Gladwin, MI
Posts: 7,758
iTrader: (1)
Mentioned: 2 Post(s)
Send a message via AIM to mikesova
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Mr Toes View Post
I don't want to mention any names but this might explain a few things regarding, well we know who.




Evolution: Basis for Racism!


--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

By Dr. Don Boys


Darwin and his disciples were not only pseudo-scientists, but they were also radical, rabid racists! Ernst Haeckel was a German biologist, and a contemporary of Darwin, who laid the foundation of racism and imperialism that resulted in Hitler's racist regime.

Edward Simon, a Jewish biology professor at Purdue University, wrote, "I don't claim that Darwin and his theory of evolution brought on the holocaust; but I cannot deny that the theory of evolution, and the atheism it engendered, led to the moral climate that made a holocaust possible."

I wonder what the "climate" is doing to students in public schools (isn't someone one here a school teacher)as they are taught they came from animals and are without any purpose in life? Could the incredible number and depth of our social problems be the result of Darwinism? I am convinced this is so, for if one believes that life has no purpose, and man came from beasts, then dignity, fairness, kindness, honesty, faithfulness and justice have no relevance and importance.

Sir Arthur Keith, a well-known evolutionist, assessed Darwin's impact on Hitler and Germany: "We see Hitler devoutly convinced that evolution produces the only real basis for a national policy....The means he adopted to secure the destiny of his race and people were organized slaughter which has drenched Europe in blood."

The unreasonable, unbiblical, unscientific philosophy of Darwin and his disciples laid a foundation for hundreds of years of hatred, barbarity and unbelief reaching into the future and impacting millions of innocent lives.

If Darwin were alive today, he would be hooted out of the scientific community because he was not a trained scientist and because of his outrageous views about black people. Darwin thought that blacks were closer to man's ape "ancestors" than the white race! Wonder what Jesse Jackson thinks of that?

Darwin's disciple, T. H. Huxley, wrote, "It may be quite true that some negroes [sic] are better than some white men, but no rational man, cognizant of the facts, believes that the average negro [sic] is the equal, still less the superior, of the average white man....The highest places in the hierarchy of civilization will assuredly not be within the reach of our dusky cousins...." (I "siced" the above places not because he used the term, negro but because he did not capitalize it.)

"Dusky cousins!" How would that be received down at the National Association for the Advancement of Colored People? But it gets worse. Henry Osborne, who was professor of biology and zoology at Columbia University, said that blacks were further back on the evolutionary ladder (nearer the apes) than whites, and "The standard of intelligence of the average adult "insert racial slur here" is similar to that of the eleven-year-old youth of the species Homo sapiens." Blacks aren't human! Wow! the most KKK nut doesn't believe that!

Edwin Conklin, professor of biology at Princeton University and president of the American Association for the Advancement of Science, said that blacks had not evolved as far as whites and "Every consideration should lead those who believe in the superiority of the white race to strive to preserve its purity and to establish and maintain the segregation of the races, for the longer this is maintained, the greater the preponderance of the white race will be." Well, there goes any possibility of Ed ever becoming a life member of the NAACP. Too bad.

The major haters of the last 100 years have been evolutionists. Men like Nietzsche (who often said God was dead, called for the breeding of a master race, and for the annihilation of millions of misfits), Hitler, Mussolini, Marx, Engels, and Stalin were all outspoken evolutionists, and these people and their theories have been responsible for the slaughter of multi-millions of people, and the destruction of freedom all over the earth. It is amazing that so many liberals, radicals, fascists, communists and the easily impressed worship at Darwin's shrine.

Yes, the foundation of racism, hatred and violence in the last hundred years is based in evolutionary teaching
Biologically, Homo-sapien is one species, not a rainbow of multiple races at different evolutionary levels. This article is creationist bullshit. If you liked this, you'll love:

mikesova is offline   Reply With Quote
Old November 20th, 2009, 08:13 AM   #7
DuffMan
Your Message Here
 
DuffMan's Avatar
 
Join Date: 11-05-05
Location: The Ile of Grosse
Posts: 5,836
iTrader: (11)
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by L4CX View Post
that Hitler used to "purge" the world of the jews. Think of it like any other Extremist. Suicide bomber, Crusades, It's not different except it's not connected to a Religion. But, if you think about it, According to Darwin's ideas, Eugenics really is the way to go.
Hitler's ideas about Jews were spawned by their relative lack of participation in WW1. This lack of participation (due to cultural issues) led to a lower level of casualties and disabilities among Jewish men, which pissed off one charismatic, well-spoken former WW1 enlisted man who started railing against them (even while the war was still on). This lack of casualties and disabilities (which stood out given the high rate of German casualties and primitive state of battlefield medicine) allowed him to develop an audience, especially as their economy collapsed under the weight of ill-conceived WW1 reparations. (I'll avoid the obvious comparison with another well-spoken, charismatic leader using the a bad economy as a smokescreen - well I guess I didn't ).

The obsession with Eugneics (rather than Darwinism, per se) came afterward as Hitler felt a need to rationalize his increasing demonization of Jews along with other groups that drew his "attentions" (mentally retarded, Gypsies, etc...).
__________________
This is the Pub. Leave common sense at the door.
DuffMan is offline   Reply With Quote
Old November 20th, 2009, 08:30 AM   #8
L4CX
Out for the Summer!
 
L4CX's Avatar
 
Join Date: 11-16-07
Location: Hillsdale, MI
Posts: 4,913
iTrader: (5)
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by DuffMan View Post
Hitler's ideas about Jews were spawned by their relative lack of participation in WW1. This lack of participation (due to cultural issues) led to a lower level of casualties and disabilities among Jewish men, which pissed off one charismatic, well-spoken former WW1 enlisted man who started railing against them (even while the war was still on). This lack of casualties and disabilities (which stood out given the high rate of German casualties and primitive state of battlefield medicine) allowed him to develop an audience, especially as their economy collapsed under the weight of ill-conceived WW1 reparations. (I'll avoid the obvious comparison with another well-spoken, charismatic leader using the a bad economy as a smokescreen - well I guess I didn't ).
This is true. And I'm sure Nobody got the parallel to the other leader.

Quote:
The obsession with Eugenics (rather than Darwinism, per se) came afterward as Hitler felt a need to rationalize his increasing demonization of Jews along with other groups that drew his "attentions" (mentally retarded, Gypsies, etc...).
What I'm saying is that because of Darwins theory Eugenics could become more easy to use as a Rationalization to kill an "undesirable" Race? I'm not saying that Darwin specifically said "hey Hitler, kill the jews", But the influence of Darwin's theory on science made Eugenics a more rational idea to some one that had an extreme Hatred for another race.....If that makes any sense.
L4CX is offline   Reply With Quote
Old November 20th, 2009, 08:41 AM   #9
DuffMan
Your Message Here
 
DuffMan's Avatar
 
Join Date: 11-05-05
Location: The Ile of Grosse
Posts: 5,836
iTrader: (11)
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by L4CX View Post
What I'm saying is that because of Darwins theory Eugenics could become more easy to use as a Rationalization to kill an "undesirable" Race? I'm not saying that Darwin specifically said "hey Hitler, kill the jews", But the influence of Darwin's theory on science made Eugenics a more rational idea to some one that had an extreme Hatred for another race.....If that makes any sense.
Pretty much where my head's at. Darwinism contributed to the "perceived legitimacy" of Eugenics.

As to the other leader, I thought I was pretty subtle. Just think if Hitler had teleprompters...
__________________
This is the Pub. Leave common sense at the door.
DuffMan is offline   Reply With Quote
Old November 20th, 2009, 03:48 PM   #10
aber61
Senior Member
 
aber61's Avatar
 
Join Date: 09-22-08
Location: Commerce Twp. Michigan
Posts: 6,078
iTrader: (3)
Mentioned: 2 Post(s)
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by L4CX View Post
Fixed it for you.





Darwinian thinking spawned the ideas that Hitler used to "purge" the world of the jews. Think of it like any other Extremist. Suicide bomber, Crusades, It's not different except it's not connected to a Religion. But, if you think about it, According to Darwin's ideas, Eugenics really is the way to go.
Thanks buddy
aber61 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old November 20th, 2009, 03:52 PM   #11
aber61
Senior Member
 
aber61's Avatar
 
Join Date: 09-22-08
Location: Commerce Twp. Michigan
Posts: 6,078
iTrader: (3)
Mentioned: 2 Post(s)
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by mikesova View Post
Biologically, Homo-sapien is one species, not a rainbow of multiple races at different evolutionary levels. This article is creationist bullshit. If you liked this, you'll love:

So darwin had something to do with the rainbow group of homo people? Interesting connection mike. I find it amazing that what you find different than your own views is BS. Did you ever think that just maybe others find your views as BS also?
aber61 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old November 20th, 2009, 03:53 PM   #12
aber61
Senior Member
 
aber61's Avatar
 
Join Date: 09-22-08
Location: Commerce Twp. Michigan
Posts: 6,078
iTrader: (3)
Mentioned: 2 Post(s)
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by L4CX View Post
This is true. And I'm sure Nobody got the parallel to the other leader.



What I'm saying is that because of Darwins theory Eugenics could become more easy to use as a Rationalization to kill an "undesirable" Race? I'm not saying that Darwin specifically said "hey Hitler, kill the jews", But the influence of Darwin's theory on science made Eugenics a more rational idea to some one that had an extreme Hatred for another race.....If that makes any sense.
The other leader still sucks
aber61 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old November 20th, 2009, 04:10 PM   #13
mikesova
My 4x4 is a Subaru.
 
mikesova's Avatar
 
Join Date: 11-05-05
Location: Gladwin, MI
Posts: 7,758
iTrader: (1)
Mentioned: 2 Post(s)
Send a message via AIM to mikesova
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by aber61 View Post
So darwin had something to do with the rainbow group of homo people? Interesting connection mike. I find it amazing that what you find different than your own views is BS. Did you ever think that just maybe others find your views as BS also?
You forgot the smiley again. If you're not joking, then show me a peer reviewed article in a science journal that says that humans(homosapiens) are made up of subspecies that differ by color.
mikesova is offline   Reply With Quote
Old November 20th, 2009, 04:14 PM   #14
Mr Toes - R.I.P.
November 7, 1958 - July 22, 2011
 
Mr Toes - R.I.P.'s Avatar
 
Join Date: 07-29-07
Location: Belleville Mi
Posts: 4,727
iTrader: (1)
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by mikesova View Post
Biologically, Homo-sapien is one species, not a rainbow of multiple races at different evolutionary levels. This article is creationist bullshit. If you liked this, you'll love:

Darwin the racist:


By Benjamin D. Wiker


Whatever Darwin intended with asserting common descent, it doesn't make slavery unnatural according to Darwin's theory. "Natural" means according to the principle of natural selection. There are, as Darwin was surprised to discover, slave-making ants and non slave-making ants. There is no doubt that all ants, slaving and non-slaving, have a common ancestor, and that natural selection produced both variant species--not by taking a wrong turn and a right turn, but simply by branching off. According to Darwin's theory, there is no doubt that all men in all human societies, slaving and non-slaving, have a common ancestor. Natural selection has produced these social variants, not by taking a wrong turn and a right turn, but simply by branching off. There is no wrong or right turn. Whatever contributes to a society's self-preservation is affirmed by natural selection. That is the core argument of Darwin's Descent of Man whether we like it or not.
Mr Toes - R.I.P. is offline   Reply With Quote
Old November 20th, 2009, 04:23 PM   #15
aber61
Senior Member
 
aber61's Avatar
 
Join Date: 09-22-08
Location: Commerce Twp. Michigan
Posts: 6,078
iTrader: (3)
Mentioned: 2 Post(s)
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by mikesova View Post
You forgot the smiley again. If you're not joking, then show me a peer reviewed article in a science journal that says that humans(homosapiens) are made up of subspecies that differ by color.
I believe that most of my peers on this site would agree that you are the most colorful subspecies here. Maybe not rainbow gay but colorful.
How is that for a peer review for you mike?
aber61 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old November 20th, 2009, 04:23 PM   #16
Dave Kerwin
web wheeling, hard.
 
Dave Kerwin's Avatar
 
Join Date: 11-18-05
Location: SE MI
Posts: 6,683
iTrader: (9)
Mentioned: 2 Post(s)
Default

I thought homosexuality was linked to darwin? You know, survival of the fittest.
Dave Kerwin is offline   Reply With Quote
Old November 20th, 2009, 04:26 PM   #17
aber61
Senior Member
 
aber61's Avatar
 
Join Date: 09-22-08
Location: Commerce Twp. Michigan
Posts: 6,078
iTrader: (3)
Mentioned: 2 Post(s)
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Dave Kerwin View Post
I thought homosexuality was linked to darwin? You know, survival of the fittest.
Does sova fall into that category?
aber61 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old November 20th, 2009, 04:27 PM   #18
Mr Toes - R.I.P.
November 7, 1958 - July 22, 2011
 
Mr Toes - R.I.P.'s Avatar
 
Join Date: 07-29-07
Location: Belleville Mi
Posts: 4,727
iTrader: (1)
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by mikesova View Post
Biologically, Homo-sapien is one species, not a rainbow of multiple races at different evolutionary levels. This article is creationist bullshit. If you liked this, you'll love:

Nice qoute from Chuckie. Negro is not on the same evolutionary rung as a Caucasian.


Charles Darwin in Decent Of Man wrote:
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, from general reasons, believe in the general principle of evolution. Breaks often 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 Lemuridae- between the elephant, and in a more striking manner between the Ornithorhynchus or Echidna, and all other mammals. But 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, the savage races throughout the world. At the same time the anthropomorphous apes, as Professor Schaaffhausen has remarked, will no doubt be exterminated. The break between man and his nearest allies will then be wider, for it will intervene between man in a more civilised state, as we may hope, even than the Caucasian, and some ape as low as a baboon, instead of as now between the "insert racial slur here" or Australian and the gorilla.
Mr Toes - R.I.P. is offline   Reply With Quote
Old November 20th, 2009, 04:31 PM   #19
mikesova
My 4x4 is a Subaru.
 
mikesova's Avatar
 
Join Date: 11-05-05
Location: Gladwin, MI
Posts: 7,758
iTrader: (1)
Mentioned: 2 Post(s)
Send a message via AIM to mikesova
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Mr Toes View Post
Darwin the racist:


By Benjamin D. Wiker


Whatever Darwin intended with asserting common descent, it doesn't make slavery unnatural according to Darwin's theory. "Natural" means according to the principle of natural selection. There are, as Darwin was surprised to discover, slave-making ants and non slave-making ants. There is no doubt that all ants, slaving and non-slaving, have a common ancestor, and that natural selection produced both variant species--not by taking a wrong turn and a right turn, but simply by branching off. According to Darwin's theory, there is no doubt that all men in all human societies, slaving and non-slaving, have a common ancestor. Natural selection has produced these social variants, not by taking a wrong turn and a right turn, but simply by branching off. There is no wrong or right turn. Whatever contributes to a society's self-preservation is affirmed by natural selection. That is the core argument of Darwin's Descent of Man whether we like it or not.
hey look, I can copy and paste and article too, only mine has facts, not just opinion.

Was Darwin a racist?

Category: History
Posted on: March 22, 2007 8:29 AM, by PZ Myers

Since Ed Darrell made such a comprehensive comment on the question of whether Darwin was as wicked a racist as the illiterate ideologues of Uncommon Descent would like you to believe, I'm just copying his list here.

1.

Remember the famous quarrel between Capt. FitzRoy and Darwin aboard the Beagle? After leaving Brazil, in their mess discussions (remember: Darwin was along to talk to FitzRoy at meals, to keep FitzRoy from going insane as his predecessor had), Darwin noted the inherent injustice of slavery. Darwin argued it was racist and unjust, and therefore unholy. FitzRoy loudly argued slavery was justified, and racism was justified, by the scriptures. It was a nasty argument, and Darwin was banned to mess with the crew with instructions to get off the boat at the next convenient stop. FitzRoy came to his senses after a few days of dining alone. Two things about this episode: First, it shows Darwin as a committed anti-racist; second, it contrasts Darwin's views with the common, scripture-inspired view of the day, which was racist.
2.

Darwin's remarks about people of color were remarkably unracist for his day. We should always note his great friend from college days, the African man who taught him taxidermy. We must make note of Darwin's befriending the Fuegan, Jeremy Button, whom the expedition was returning to his home. Non-racist descriptions abound in context, but this is a favorite area for anti-Darwinists to quote mine. Also, point to Voyage of the Beagle, which is available on line. In it Darwin compares the intellect of the Brazilian slaves with Europeans, and notes that the slaves are mentally and tactically as capable as the greatest of the Roman generals. Hard evidence of fairness on Darwin's part.
3.

Darwin's correspondence, especially from the voyage, indicates his strong support for ending slavery, because slavery was unjust and racist. He is unequivocal on the point. Moreover, many in Darwin's family agreed, and the Wedgewood family fortune was put behind the movement to end slavery. Money talks louder than creationists in this case, I think. Ironic, Darwin supports the Wilberforce family's work against slavery, and Samuel Wilberforce betrays the support. It reminds me of Pasteur, who said nasty things about Darwin; but when the chips were down and Pasteur's position and reputation were on the line, Darwin defended Pasteur. Darwin was a great man in many ways.
4.

Watch for the notorious quote mining of Emma's remark that Charles was "a bigot." It's true, she said it. Emma said Charles was a bigot, but in respect to Darwin's hatred of spiritualists and seances. Darwin's brother, Erasmus, was suckered in by spiritualists. Darwin was, indeed, a bigot against such hoaxes. It's recounted in Desmond and Moore's biography, but shameless quote miners hope their audience hasn't read the book and won't. Down here in Texas, a lot of the quote miners are Baptists. I enjoy asking them if they do not share Darwin's bigotry against fortune tellers. Smart ones smile, and drop the argument.
5.

One might hope that the "Darwin-was-racist" crap comes around to the old canard that Darwin's work was the basis of the campaign to kill the natives of Tasmania. That was truly a terrible, racist campaign, and largely successful. Of course, historians note that the war against Tasmanians was begun in 1805, and essentially completed by 1831, when just a handful of Tasmanians remained alive. These dates are significant, of course, because they show the war started four years prior to Darwin's birth, and it was over when Darwin first encountered Tasmania on his voyage, leaving England in 1831. In fact, Darwin laments the battle. I have often found Darwin critics quoting Darwin's words exactly, but claiming they were the words of others against Darwin's stand.
6.

Also, one should be familiar with Darwin's writing about "civilized" Europeans wiping out "savages." In the first place, "savage" in that day and in Darwin's context simply means 'not living in European-style cities, with tea and the occasional Mozart.' In the second, and more critical place, Darwin advances the argument noting that (in the case of the Tasmanians, especially), the "savages" are the group that is better fit to the natural environment, and hence superior to the Europeans, evolutionarily. Darwin does not urge these conflicts, but rather, laments them. How ironic that creationist quote miners do not recognize that.

Isn't it odd how the creationists are so divorced from reality that they can't even concede that Darwin was an abolitionist, and are so reduced in their arguments against evolution that they've had to resort to the desperate "Darwin beats puppies!" attack?
mikesova is offline   Reply With Quote
Old November 20th, 2009, 05:02 PM   #20
Mr Toes - R.I.P.
November 7, 1958 - July 22, 2011
 
Mr Toes - R.I.P.'s Avatar
 
Join Date: 07-29-07
Location: Belleville Mi
Posts: 4,727
iTrader: (1)
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by mikesova View Post
hey look, I can copy and paste and article too, only mine has facts, not just opinion.

Was Darwin a racist?

Category: History
Posted on: March 22, 2007 8:29 AM, by PZ Myers

Since Ed Darrell made such a comprehensive comment on the question of whether Darwin was as wicked a racist as the illiterate ideologues of Uncommon Descent would like you to believe, I'm just copying his list here.

1.

Remember the famous quarrel between Capt. FitzRoy and Darwin aboard the Beagle? After leaving Brazil, in their mess discussions (remember: Darwin was along to talk to FitzRoy at meals, to keep FitzRoy from going insane as his predecessor had), Darwin noted the inherent injustice of slavery. Darwin argued it was racist and unjust, and therefore unholy. FitzRoy loudly argued slavery was justified, and racism was justified, by the scriptures. It was a nasty argument, and Darwin was banned to mess with the crew with instructions to get off the boat at the next convenient stop. FitzRoy came to his senses after a few days of dining alone. Two things about this episode: First, it shows Darwin as a committed anti-racist; second, it contrasts Darwin's views with the common, scripture-inspired view of the day, which was racist.

This sounds more like an argument about religion.
2.

Darwin's remarks about people of color were remarkably unracist for his day. We should always note his great friend from college days, the African man who taught him taxidermy. We must make note of Darwin's befriending the Fuegan, Jeremy Button, whom the expedition was returning to his home. Non-racist descriptions abound in context, but this is a favorite area for anti-Darwinists to quote mine. Also, point to Voyage of the Beagle, which is available on line. In it Darwin compares the intellect of the Brazilian slaves with Europeans, and notes that the slaves are mentally and tactically as capable as the greatest of the Roman generals. Hard evidence of fairness on Darwin's part.

Typical liberal bla bla bla, not one quote from Darwin, depite THE FACT the guy claims "Non-racist descriptions abound in context" he provides 0. I see no facts here Mikey
3.

Darwin's correspondence, especially from the voyage, indicates his strong support for ending slavery, because slavery was unjust and racist. He is unequivocal on the point. Moreover, many in Darwin's family agreed, and the Wedgewood family fortune was put behind the movement to end slavery. Money talks louder than creationists in this case, I think. Ironic, Darwin supports the Wilberforce family's work against slavery, and Samuel Wilberforce betrays the support. It reminds me of Pasteur, who said nasty things about Darwin; but when the chips were down and Pasteur's position and reputation were on the line, Darwin defended Pasteur. Darwin was a great man in many ways.

More bla bla bla no qoutes no backup
4.

Watch for the notorious quote mining of Emma's remark that Charles was "a bigot." It's true, she said it. Emma said Charles was a bigot, but in respect to Darwin's hatred of spiritualists and seances. Darwin's brother, Erasmus, was suckered in by spiritualists. Darwin was, indeed, a bigot against such hoaxes. It's recounted in Desmond and Moore's biography, but shameless quote miners hope their audience hasn't read the book and won't. Down here in Texas, a lot of the quote miners are Baptists. I enjoy asking them if they do not share Darwin's bigotry against fortune tellers. Smart ones smile, and drop the argument.

I like the argument that Darwin was a bigot but thats ok because he had good reason.
5.

One might hope that the "Darwin-was-racist" crap comes around to the old canard that Darwin's work was the basis of the campaign to kill the natives of Tasmania. That was truly a terrible, racist campaign, and largely successful. Of course, historians note that the war against Tasmanians was begun in 1805, and essentially completed by 1831, when just a handful of Tasmanians remained alive. These dates are significant, of course, because they show the war started four years prior to Darwin's birth, and it was over when Darwin first encountered Tasmania on his voyage, leaving England in 1831. In fact, Darwin laments the battle. I have often found Darwin critics quoting Darwin's words exactly, but claiming they were the words of others against Darwin's stand.

Oh this is sooooo relevant, this just proves everthing...hehehehe my aching side, Im laughing so hard my side hurts
6.

Also, one should be familiar with Darwin's writing about "civilized" Europeans wiping out "savages." In the first place, "savage" in that day and in Darwin's context simply means 'not living in European-style cities, with tea and the occasional Mozart.' In the second, and more critical place, Darwin advances the argument noting that (in the case of the Tasmanians, especially), the "savages" are the group that is better fit to the natural environment, and hence superior to the Europeans, evolutionarily. Darwin does not urge these conflicts, but rather, laments them. How ironic that creationist quote miners do not recognize that.

Opinion again, whos to say who's opinion is right and who's is wrong. No facts here just us opinions

Isn't it odd how the creationists are so divorced from reality that they can't even concede that Darwin was an abolitionist, and are so reduced in their arguments against evolution that they've had to resort to the desperate "Darwin beats puppies!" attack?
Isn't it odd the evolutionist are so divorced from reality that they can't even concede that the opinion of one does not out weigh the opinion of another, and are so reduced in their arguments that they have to resort to "My opinion is fact" argument.
Mr Toes - R.I.P. is offline   Reply With Quote
Reply
Great Lakes 4x4. The largest offroad forum in the Midwest > General 4x4 Stuff > Politics, Government, or Religion Chat
Thread Tools

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off

Forum Jump



All times are GMT -5. The time now is 04:17 AM.


Powered by: vBulletin, Copyright 2000 - 2012, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.
User Alert System provided by Advanced User Tagging (Lite) - vBulletin Mods & Addons Copyright © 2014 DragonByte Technologies Ltd. Runs best on HiVelocity Hosting.
Copyright 2005 - 2012 Cracker Enterprises - Powered by Linux
vB Ad Management by =RedTyger=
Page generated in 0.42003 seconds with 52 queries