Home Mobile Archives Reader Blogs Register Login

Friday, February 17, 2006

Darwin and Racism

I am currently in the process of reading Central Europe, Enemies, Neighbors, Friends, a scholarly history by Lonnie R. Johnson. In the section describing the nineteenth century German attitudes toward the 'inferior' Slavs, The author had this to say:
The development of the pseudoscientific and social Darwinistic theories of race toward the end of the nineteenth century added a completely new racial dimension to the historical, linguistic, and cultural definitions of the Germans as a Volk and Mitteleuropa as a "German space." As soon as biologists began defining culture as a racial attribute and started using the concept of natural selection - or its social Darwinistic bastardization, "the survival of the fittest" - as a means of distinguishing between allegedly superior and inferior races, historical struggles between Germans and Slavs appeared in a completely new light.
Indeed, what role did Darwin himself and his theories have in the establishment of racial biases?
The Darwin quotes in this article Darwin on race and slavery while strongly stating that he was very much opposed to slavery do not indicate whether he considered one race to be superior to another.

In "Scientific Racism" in Enlightened Europe", the author considers that racism began with Enightenment and was possibly reinforced by the evolutionary theories
The concept of racism did not always exist: in fact, it only really began with the ideas of the Enlightenment, mainly those that focused on evolution. And it was not solely influenced by Charles Darwin's theory of evolution: even before the one he put forth in Origin of Species, other evolutionary theories such as Lamarckism - proposed by Jean- Baptiste de Monet, Chevalier de Lamarck, and modified by German zoologist Ernst Haeckel - a certain version of Lamarckism - already existed. Although the theories of the last two evolutionists did not involve natural selection, they also managed to inspire racism that was justified: it had science as its basis. Even as early as 1774, Edward Long - a Jamaican physicist - insisted that peoples of African descent "were a lower order of humanity, probably 'a different species of the same Genus'

There is also the possibility of the misuse of Darwin's theory.

Although the publication of his ideas in Origin of Species in 1859 caused quite an uproar within religious circles, it revolutionized natural science and - although it was not his intent - vindicated imperialist practices. Since Europeans believed themselves to be more technologically advanced than other peoples, Darwin's theory suggested that they were indeed the most superior race of all. It also suggested that the different human races were engaged in a competitive struggle to survive. Thus, it justified such ignorant acts as the conquest, colonization, and extermination of entire peoples.

But the full extent of racial discrimination based on scientific theory was not reached until the establishment of eugenics by Francis Galton.
Francis Galton, who happened to be cousin to Darwin, is conventionally held responsible for the beginning of this scientific study of breeding and its improvement. In the chapter of his book Hereditary Genius - published in 1869 - entitled "The Comparative Worth of Different Races," Galton uses a sort of grading scale to point out where each race in the classification system he used lay according to its range of intelligence. On this scale, he stated that half of the men of each race would lie on the higher side of its ability, and the other half would lie in the lower side of its ability

In the article Darwin's Racism, the author is perhaps less kind to Darwin as he wrote
In the 19th century, when Darwin put forward his claim that living things had not been created, that they had emerged by coincidence, and that the human being had a common ancestor with animals and had emerged as the most highly developed organism as the result of coincidence, perhaps most people could not imagine what the results of this claim would be. But in the 20th century the end result of the claim was lived out in terrible experiences. Those who saw human beings as a developed animal, did not hesitate to rise by treading on the weak, to find a way of disposing of the sick and weak, and to carry out massacres to get rid of races which they saw as different and inferior. Because their theory with a mask of science told them that this was a "law of nature." The disasters Darwinism brought to the world began in this way, and gathering speed, spread over the whole world.

and concludes with
Furthermore, Darwin's theory's denying the existence of God had been the cause of peoples' not seeing that man was something created by God and that all men were created equal. This was one of the factors behind the rise of racism, the acceleration of its acceptance in the world and the 20th century saw massacres carried out for reasons of racism

Regardless of Darwin's intentions, if man is considered merely to be an animal subject to the natural selection laws of evolution, it would seem that the only logical conclusion that could be made is that the different races of man have evolved different characteristics at different rates and it is these differences that give fuel to racism.

Comments

Avatar for Yellow_Number_Five

Here’s an article written to refute the specious one above.

All humans are fundamentally the same. We all come from a common ancestor; we all share a common genetic history. One of the oldest criticisms of evolutionary theory has always been that such a theory is racist, or could be used to justify racism; however to the contrary evolution tells us that we all come from the same place, from the same ancestor – we are all very distant cousins of one another (1) and have been interbreeding with one another since the dawn of the species (and even before that if you want to get really technical). What’s more, the related field of genetics has shown that at our very core, our DNA, is fundamentally the same across our entire species and that we all came from the same place – Africa around 60,000 years ago (2).


Even more importantly, genetic studies have shown that human genetic diversity is more pronounced between individuals of the same population than between different populations or even continents (4), (5). In fact, it has been known for quite some time that human genetic variation lies largely between individuals within populations, rather than between populations or even between continents. Genetic studies have confirmed this using classical genetic makers to the point that we know that the apportionment of genetic diversity lies 88 to 90% among individuals within populations and 10 to 12% among different populations (6). I use the term population here rather than race, because biologically speaking, race simply does not exist. In other words, genetically speaking, Africans and Asians are more similar to one another as groups than any two individual Asians are to one another or any two Africans are to on another.


The reasons for this lack of genetic variance between populations, races and continents are many; DNA bottlenecks and near extinctions of our species (7), the fact that we are a relatively young species, the fact that we are historically nomadic and intermixing species, but the empirical evidence speaks for itself – we are much more similar to one another than most would imagine and most of our differences really are only skin deep. It is clear that the “races” do not differ genetically in any significant way. Thus it is unreasonable to assume that certain “races” of people would be more genetically predisposed to certain behaviors than other “races”, even if it could be shown that genetic predispositions to behaviors like violence even exist in a conclusive demonstrable capacity – no conclusive evidence exists, that I am aware of, that determinant genetic specific behaviors exist, let alone that they are quantifiable or measurable.

When one uses the term race in a biological sense, they are implying subspecies categorization – there is absolutely no basis for such categorization in humans.

To understand what a subspecies is, one must first understand what a species is. Famed evolutionary biologist Ernst Mayr (RIP )put it succinctly enough that his explanation is still quoted frequently by other biologists to this day: species are "groups of actually or potentially interbreeding natural populations which are reproductively isolated from other such groups" (8 ). A subspecies is a taxonomic group that is a division of a species and is distinguished by (9):

1) Members of one subspecies must be reliably distinguishable from members of other subspecies.

2) The exchange of genetic material between subspecies must be minimal, and expected to remain minimal even if the two groups were placed in close proximity to one another.

3) In order to be regarded as subspecies, rather than a single varied species, the difference between subspecies must be distinct and NOT simply a difference of CONTINUOUSLY VARYING DEGREE. (For example skin color in humans).

Differences of continuously varying degree are called clines, and they are clear evidence of gene flow between populations and thus cause to question subspecies categorization. It is also important to note that the biological definition of subspecies and race are interchangeable; however the biological and colloquial definitions of race are VERY different. To qualify as a biological subspecies or race, a group must meet the above requirements. Examples of human subspecies (two of which are now extinct) are homo sapiens, homo sapiens sapiens (no, the extra sapiens is not a typo) and possibly homo neanderthalis


So there you have it; we are all the same genetically speaking, yet we remain individuals - for it is within individuals and not races that the genetic spice of life really lies.



(1) Dawkins, Richard. “River out of Eden” ch.2

(2) Cavalli-Sforza, L. L.(1998). The DNA revolution in population genetics. Trends in Genetics. 14(Feb.), p. 60-65.

(3) Wise, C., Sraml, M., Rubinsztein, D., Easteal. S. 1997. Comparative Nuclear and Mitochondrial Genome Diversity in Humans and Chimpanzees. Molecular Biology and Evolution 14:707-716.

(4) Jorde, L., Rogers, A., Bamshad, M., Watkins, W.S., Krakowiak, P., Sung, S., Kere, J., Harpending, H. April 1997. Microsatellite Diversity and the Demographic History of Modern Humans. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences 94:3100-3103.

(5) Bowcock. A.M., Ruiz-Linares, A., Tomfohrde, J., Minch, E., Kidd, J.R., Cavalli-Sforza, L.L. 1994. High resolution of human evolutionary trees with polymorphic microsatellites. Nature 368:455-457.

(6) Lewontin, R. C. 1972. The apportionment of human diversity. Evolutionary Biology 6:381-398. Cited in Ref. 35.

(7) http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/nova/neanderthals/mtdna.html

(8 ) Mayr, E. 1940. Speciation phenomena in birds. Am. Nat. 74: 249–278.

(9) Subspecies and Classification, Smith, H., Chiszar, D., and Montanucci, R. 1997. Herpetological Review 28(1):13-16

http://www.goodrumj.com/Smith.html

For more good information with a rational non-propagandist pundit frame of mind, please visit, and discuss with other freethinking peoples at the Infidel Guy’s site:

http://www.infidelguy.com/index.php

Yellow_Number_Five on February 18, 2006 at 12:02 am
Rob
Rob
19421 comments
Send a private message

It interesting post, Dave.  This isn’t something I’d considered before.

I wonder, though, if human evolution isn’t more of a societal thing than a genetic thing.  Consider American society vs. middle eastern society.  Here in America I’d say that we are on the cutting edge of evolution.  We respect individual rights and freedoms and have a system of government based on the will of the people and that is receptive to dissent from all factions.

In the middle east they, generally, have no such things.  There is no religious freedom, for the most part, and the oppression of women and denial of certain basic individual freedoms continues to this day.  They are capable of such things as liberty and equality, but have not yet embraced them.  In essence, we here in the west have evolved beyond them, yet as far as the way our bodies and minds work I’m not sure you could tell much of a difference between a person born in America and a person born in Iran.

I think that human evolution is fairly uniform across the races, but that societal evolution has varied by region.  Going back in history a bit adulterers and thieves were routinely stockaded in the New England colonies under Puritan laws, and going back a bit further we can speak of protestants who were burned at the stake in places like Spain and France.  But these western societies have evolved past those sort of things, while middle eastern socieities have not.

I don’t know why that has happened, but I don’t think it has anything to do with race. 


When the people fear their government, there is tyranny; when the government fears the people, there is liberty.

-- Thomas Jefferson

Rob’s recently listened-to songs:

robport.gif border=0

Rob on February 18, 2006 at 08:24 am
Avatar for docdaved

Thanks, Rob, I became intersested in this subject after I read the quote from the Centrol European history book.  I pretty much agree with you that what we are dealing with is mainly a societal thing.  It’s just that Darwin happened around the same time that Enlightenment and Reformation was taking root with secular interests replacing and supplanting the interests of the Christian churchs so there was a lot of new ideas being thrown about.  But race did get involved in a big way in the subjugation of people.  Here in this country, Indians and Negros were considered inferior.  There have been any number of academics that were (are) willing to show how Negros are genetically inferior.  [Do a search on ‘negro inferior’ and see what you get.]  As recently as the mid-twenieth century, Adolf Hilter took this to the extreme with his lebensraum pogroms to eliminate not just the Jews but all other inferior races so the land they previously occupied would be available for the superior German race.  But as you so aptly put it, one doesn’t need race to be exclusive or biased as is the case of Islam where all non-muslims are inferior infidels.

 

docdaved on February 18, 2006 at 11:36 am

But as you so aptly put it, one doesn’t need race to be exclusive or biased as is the case of Islam where all non-muslims are inferior infidels.

Or in Christianity, where all non-human animals are inferior and victims of our "dominion."

Dave on February 18, 2006 at 07:25 pm
Avatar for N/A

Check out the school system in your area. I know they one kid out with independent though, and is diffrent from the other classmates. I is strait out of “brave new world” the socialist system is creating.

N/A on June 11, 2006 at 07:40 pm
Page 1 of 1        

Post a Comment


Before commenting, please recite:

Grant me the serenity to ignore the trolls,
the courage to debate with honest opponents,
and the wisdom to know the difference.

Name   
Email   
URL   
Human?
  
 

Upload Image    

Remember my personal information

Notify me of follow-up comments?

Note: Notifications will only be sent to confirmed email addresses.

    

By submitting your comment you agree to our terms of service.