the Racist Roots of Evolution.
American Patriot
Of course, the subtitle of 'origins' is racist, but some deny that
Darwin was speaking of human races there, so let's go into the body of
the book itself:
"At some future period (Darwin writes), not very distant as measured by
centuries, the civilized races of man will almost certainly exterminate
and replace the savage races throughout the world. At the same time the
anthropomorphous apes ... 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 civilized state, as we may hope, even
than the Caucasian, and some ape as low as the baboon, instead of as
now between the Negro or Australian and the gorilla." (Charles Darwin,
The Descent of Man 2nd ed (New York: A. L. Burt Co., I 874), p.
178).
So the line between human and his nearest relatives falls somewhere
between the Negro and the Gorilla, huh? Nothing racist there.
Nosiree. Strictly science.
Terry
--
'Professing themselves to be wise, they became fools, and changed the
glory of the uncorruptible God into an image made like to corruptible
man, and to birds, and four footed beasts, and creeping things'
Saint Paul
Sent via Deja.com http://www.deja.com/
Before you buy.
Boikat
>
> I have been challenged to prove this claim, so here is some evidence.
> Of course, the subtitle of 'origins' is racist, but some deny that
> Darwin was speaking of human races there, so let's go into the body of
> the book itself:
>
> "At some future period (Darwin writes), not very distant as measured by
> centuries, the civilized races of man will almost certainly exterminate
> and replace the savage races throughout the world. At the same time the
> anthropomorphous apes ... 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 civilized state, as we may hope, even
> than the Caucasian, and some ape as low as the baboon, instead of as
> now between the Negro or Australian and the gorilla." (Charles Darwin,
> The Descent of Man 2nd ed (New York: A. L. Burt Co., I 874), p.
> 178).
>
> So the line between human and his nearest relatives falls somewhere
> between the Negro and the Gorilla, huh? Nothing racist there.
> Nosiree. Strictly science.
That must be why the KKK caries a burning torch in
one hand, and "The Descent of Man" in the other.
No wait. That's not "The Descent of Man", it's
the Bible.
Boikat
Mapi32
~Matthias
Larry Handlin
wrote:
And your position on the US Constitution is that we should throw it
out...
>I have been challenged to prove this claim, so here is some evidence.
>Of course, the subtitle of 'origins' is racist, but some deny that
>Darwin was speaking of human races there, so let's go into the body of
>the book itself:
>
>"At some future period (Darwin writes), not very distant as measured by
>centuries, the civilized races of man will almost certainly exterminate
>and replace the savage races throughout the world. At the same time the
>anthropomorphous apes ... 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 civilized state, as we may hope, even
>than the Caucasian, and some ape as low as the baboon, instead of as
>now between the Negro or Australian and the gorilla." (Charles Darwin,
>The Descent of Man 2nd ed (New York: A. L. Burt Co., I 874), p.
>178).
>
>So the line between human and his nearest relatives falls somewhere
>between the Negro and the Gorilla, huh? Nothing racist there.
>Nosiree. Strictly science.
>
Reply to lbha...@my-deja.com
"The rest of the world is standing on the brink
of a new millennium, and Kansas has voted itself
back into the Stone Age."
---Robert Park
"They laughed at Galileo. They laughed at Newton.
But they also laughed at Bozo the Clown."
-- Carl Sagan
Dave Oldridge
<8co42i$57j$1...@nnrp1.deja.com>:
>I have been challenged to prove this claim, so here is some evidence.
>Of course, the subtitle of 'origins' is racist, but some deny that
>Darwin was speaking of human races there, so let's go into the body of
>the book itself:
>
>"At some future period (Darwin writes), not very distant as measured by
>centuries, the civilized races of man will almost certainly exterminate
>and replace the savage races throughout the world. At the same time the
>anthropomorphous apes ... 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 civilized state, as we may hope, even
>than the Caucasian, and some ape as low as the baboon, instead of as
>now between the Negro or Australian and the gorilla." (Charles Darwin,
>The Descent of Man 2nd ed (New York: A. L. Burt Co., I 874), p.
>178).
>
>So the line between human and his nearest relatives falls somewhere
>between the Negro and the Gorilla, huh? Nothing racist there.
>Nosiree. Strictly science.
The fact that Darwin may have shared some of the racist views of his
contemporaries does not change the scientific evaluation of evidence
presently in hand. This whole argument is a false appeal to emotional biases
and has actually been made from both sides (depending what the arguer thinks
the bias of his hearers is).
Hitler claimed alternately to be Christian and Darwinist. Neither claim made
his hollow earth theories any more or less scientific.
Jesse Fahl
news:38EF9710...@bellsouth.net...
> American Patriot wrote:
> >
> > I have been challenged to prove this claim, so here is some evidence.
> > Of course, the subtitle of 'origins' is racist, but some deny that
> > Darwin was speaking of human races there, so let's go into the body of
> > the book itself:
> >
> > "At some future period (Darwin writes), not very distant as measured by
> > centuries, the civilized races of man will almost certainly exterminate
> > and replace the savage races throughout the world. At the same time the
> > anthropomorphous apes ... 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 civilized state, as we may hope, even
> > than the Caucasian, and some ape as low as the baboon, instead of as
> > now between the Negro or Australian and the gorilla." (Charles Darwin,
> > The Descent of Man 2nd ed (New York: A. L. Burt Co., I 874), p.
> > 178).
> >
> > So the line between human and his nearest relatives falls somewhere
> > between the Negro and the Gorilla, huh? Nothing racist there.
> > Nosiree. Strictly science.
>
> one hand, and "The Descent of Man" in the other.
> No wait. That's not "The Descent of Man", it's
> the Bible.
And this has any relevance whatsoever because.........?
Boikat
>
> That wasn't a very good answer, in my opinion.
Noted. But then again, Trainers interpretation
(Or rather, someone else's interpretation, which
Trainer fell for) of what Darwin was saying wasn't
a very good argument to support his assertion to
begin with. If he had actually read "The Descent
of Man", rather than just barfing up quoted
material out of context, he'd know better.
Also, the purpose of my response was to show that
*anything* can be warped to support racism.
Science, religion, fairy tales. You name it, it
can be warped. Including the Bible. Or do you
deny that the KKK bases a lot of their philosophy
on their interpretation of the Bible?
Boikat
>
> ~Matthias
>
> > That must be why the KKK caries a burning torch in
> > one hand, and "The Descent of Man" in the other.
> > No wait. That's not "The Descent of Man", it's
> > the Bible.
> >
> > Boikat
Micheal Keane
>I have been challenged to prove this claim, so here is some evidence.
>Of course, the subtitle of 'origins' is racist, but some deny that
>Darwin was speaking of human races there, so let's go into the body of
>the book itself:
The quote's from a completely different book moron.
>So the line between human and his nearest relatives falls somewhere
>between the Negro and the Gorilla, huh? Nothing racist there.
>Nosiree. Strictly science.
Darwin was as racist as anyone else in that era. Or the racist roots of
American democracy because the founding fathers owned slaves?
It has nothing to do with evolution or democracy today
Micheal Keane
<8F1097009a...@207.217.77.24>:
>Darwin was as racist as anyone else in that era. Or the racist roots of
>American democracy because the founding fathers owned slaves?
That should read "Or what about the racists roots of American democracy..."
Mapi32
saying you could have come up with a better reply, such as showing how the
text was taken out of context.
~Matthias
"Boikat" <boi...@bellsouth.net> wrote in message
news:38EF9EB7...@bellsouth.net...
Schalk
Admittedly I don't know many other atheists, but they are all as liberal you
can find.
Even stranger how most of the racist killings have happened for religious
reasons. The crusades could arguably be called the greatest racist killing
spree in history (you "American Patriots" still seem to have problems
grasping the idea that Arab is not synonym for target...).
But back to the point. Darwin was a man of his time and we can't really
blame him for the prejudices of his society. If nothing else we should thank
him for putting the process in motion that now allows us to say with
confidence that racism has no scientific basis.
"American Patriot" <ttra...@my-deja.com> wrote in message
news:8co42i$57j$1...@nnrp1.deja.com...
> I have been challenged to prove this claim, so here is some evidence.
> Of course, the subtitle of 'origins' is racist, but some deny that
> Darwin was speaking of human races there, so let's go into the body of
> the book itself:
>
> "At some future period (Darwin writes), not very distant as measured by
> centuries, the civilized races of man will almost certainly exterminate
> and replace the savage races throughout the world. At the same time the
> anthropomorphous apes ... 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 civilized state, as we may hope, even
> than the Caucasian, and some ape as low as the baboon, instead of as
> now between the Negro or Australian and the gorilla." (Charles Darwin,
> The Descent of Man 2nd ed (New York: A. L. Burt Co., I 874), p.
> 178).
>
> So the line between human and his nearest relatives falls somewhere
> between the Negro and the Gorilla, huh? Nothing racist there.
> Nosiree. Strictly science.
>
maff91
>"Boikat" <boi...@bellsouth.net> wrote in message
>news:38EF9710...@bellsouth.net...
>> American Patriot wrote:
>> >
>> > I have been challenged to prove this claim, so here is some evidence.
>> > Of course, the subtitle of 'origins' is racist, but some deny that
>> > Darwin was speaking of human races there, so let's go into the body of
>> > the book itself:
>> >
>> > "At some future period (Darwin writes), not very distant as measured by
>> > centuries, the civilized races of man will almost certainly exterminate
>> > and replace the savage races throughout the world. At the same time the
>> > anthropomorphous apes ... 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 civilized state, as we may hope, even
>> > than the Caucasian, and some ape as low as the baboon, instead of as
>> > now between the Negro or Australian and the gorilla." (Charles Darwin,
>> > The Descent of Man 2nd ed (New York: A. L. Burt Co., I 874), p.
>> > 178).
>> >
>> > So the line between human and his nearest relatives falls somewhere
>> > between the Negro and the Gorilla, huh? Nothing racist there.
>> > Nosiree. Strictly science.
>>
>> That must be why the KKK caries a burning torch in
>> one hand, and "The Descent of Man" in the other.
>> No wait. That's not "The Descent of Man", it's
>> the Bible.
>
>And this has any relevance whatsoever because.........?
"My correspondent thinks with Mr. Jefferson, that Jehovah has no
attributes that will harmonize with slavery; and that all men are born
free and equal. Now, I say let him throw away his Bible as Mr.
Jefferson did his and then they will be fit companions. But never
disgrace the Bible by making Mr. Jefferson its expounder, nor
Mr. Jefferson by deriving his sentiments from it. Mr. Jefferson did
not bow to the authority of the Bible, and on this subject I do not
bow to him."
[Rev. Thornton Stringfellow, D.D., in "Scriptural View of Slavery," a
work showing that the Bible sanctions slavery, from John E. Remsburg,
"Six Historic Americans. Chapter 2: Thomas Jefferson"]
http://www.infidels.org/library/historical/john_remsburg/six_historic_americans/chapter_2.html
"The right of holding slaves is clearly established in the Holy
Scriptures, both by precept and example."
[Rev. R. Furman, D.D., Baptist, of South Carolina]
"There is not one verse in the Bible inhibiting slavery, but many
regulating it. It is not then, we conclude, immoral."
[Rev. Alexander Campbell]
"The extracts from Holy Writ unequivocally assert the right of
property in slaves."
[Rev. E.D. Simms, professor, Randolph-Macon College]
"I draw my warrant from the Scriptures of the Old and New Testaments
to hold the slave in bondage."
[Rev. Thomas Witherspoon, Presbyterian, of Alabama]
"In another area of human rights, many Christian clergymen advocated
slavery. Historian Larry Hise notes in his book 'Pro-Slavery' that
ministers 'wrote almost half of all defenses of slavery published in
America.' He lists 275 men of the cloth who used the Bible to prove
that white people were entitled to own black people as work animals."
[James A. Haught, 'Holy Horrors']
http://www.amazon.com/exec/obidos/ASIN/0879755784/
"The delegates of the annual conference are decidedly opposed to
modern abolitionism, and wholly disclaim any right, wish, or intention
to interfere in the civil and political relation between master and
slave in the slave-holding states of the union."
[Methodist Episcopal Church, Statement of the General Conference,
Cincinnati, May 1836]
Slavery, segregation and the Bible
http://www.deja.com/getdoc.xp?AN=439145525
http://www.deja.com/getdoc.xp?AN=540448767
http://www.dovelink.com/News/archives/Feb1999/Feb161999.htm
http://www.religioustolerance.org/chr_slav.htm
http://dir.yahoo.com/Arts/Humanities/History/U_S__History/Slavery/
http://dir.yahoo.com/Arts/Humanities/History/By_Subject/Slavery/Atlantic_Slave_Trade/
http://www.amazon.com/exec/obidos/Subject=Slavery/
http://www.amazon.com/exec/obidos/Subject=Segregation/
http://www.amazon.com/exec/obidos/Subject=Lynching/
--
Voices for evolution
http://www.natcenscied.org/voicont.htm
Mapi32
;-)
~Matthias
"Schalk" <scha...@hotmail.comNOSPAM> wrote in message
news:38efb...@news1.mweb.co.za...
> Strange how all the racists I know are also Christians or Moslems.
> Admittedly I don't know many other atheists, but they are all as liberal
you
> can find.
>
> Even stranger how most of the racist killings have happened for religious
> reasons. The crusades could arguably be called the greatest racist
killing
> spree in history (you "American Patriots" still seem to have problems
> grasping the idea that Arab is not synonym for target...).
>
> But back to the point. Darwin was a man of his time and we can't really
> blame him for the prejudices of his society. If nothing else we should
thank
> him for putting the process in motion that now allows us to say with
> confidence that racism has no scientific basis.
>
>
>
> "American Patriot" <ttra...@my-deja.com> wrote in message
> news:8co42i$57j$1...@nnrp1.deja.com...
> > I have been challenged to prove this claim, so here is some evidence.
> > Of course, the subtitle of 'origins' is racist, but some deny that
> > Darwin was speaking of human races there, so let's go into the body of
> > the book itself:
> >
> > "At some future period (Darwin writes), not very distant as measured by
> > centuries, the civilized races of man will almost certainly exterminate
> > and replace the savage races throughout the world. At the same time the
> > anthropomorphous apes ... 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 civilized state, as we may hope, even
> > than the Caucasian, and some ape as low as the baboon, instead of as
> > now between the Negro or Australian and the gorilla." (Charles Darwin,
> > The Descent of Man 2nd ed (New York: A. L. Burt Co., I 874), p.
> > 178).
> >
> > So the line between human and his nearest relatives falls somewhere
> > between the Negro and the Gorilla, huh? Nothing racist there.
> > Nosiree. Strictly science.
> >
ZeldaG
>From: American Patriot ttra...@my-deja.com
>Date: 4/8/2000 1:16 PM Pacific Daylight Time
>Message-id: <8co42i$57j$1...@nnrp1.deja.com>
>
>I have been challenged to prove this claim, so here is some evidence.
>Of course, the subtitle of 'origins' is racist, but some deny that
>Darwin was speaking of human races there, so let's go into the body of
>the book itself:
>
>"At some future period (Darwin writes), not very distant as measured by
>centuries, the civilized races of man will almost certainly exterminate
>and replace the savage races throughout the world. At the same time the
>anthropomorphous apes ... 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 civilized state, as we may hope, even
>than the Caucasian, and some ape as low as the baboon, instead of as
>now between the Negro or Australian and the gorilla." (Charles Darwin,
>The Descent of Man 2nd ed (New York: A. L. Burt Co., I 874), p.
>178).
>
>So the line between human and his nearest relatives falls somewhere
>between the Negro and the Gorilla, huh? Nothing racist there.
>Nosiree. Strictly science.
In Darwin's time, Phrenology was considered serious science and was thought to
validate racism. Therefore, Darwin's statements, while taken as racist today,
were not unreasonable. What is telling is that even though Darwin viewed
"savage" races as somewhat intermediate between Europeans and apes, while
predicting that said races could become extinct, he did not advocate racism or
prescribe a hastening of such "selection". It is all the more remarkable
because he was a very prolific author and had ample opportunity to do so.
Darwins racism has nothing to do with the validity of evolution, except as
serving as a vehicle for Creationist propaganda.
tweedyd
> Of course, the subtitle of 'origins' is racist, but some deny that
> Darwin was speaking of human races there, so let's go into the body of
> the book itself:
>
> "At some future period (Darwin writes), not very distant as measured by
> centuries, the civilized races of man will almost certainly exterminate
> and replace the savage races throughout the world. At the same time the
> anthropomorphous apes ... 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 civilized state, as we may hope, even
> than the Caucasian, and some ape as low as the baboon, instead of as
> now between the Negro or Australian and the gorilla." (Charles Darwin,
> The Descent of Man 2nd ed (New York: A. L. Burt Co., I 874), p.
> 178).
>
> So the line between human and his nearest relatives falls somewhere
> between the Negro and the Gorilla, huh? Nothing racist there.
> Nosiree. Strictly science.
Assuming that this quote is correct, and that it is in fact in context, one
must understand the social context also. Darwin lived and worked in a time
where racism was accepted. The idea that Caucasans were "superior" was
casually assumed by nearly everyone at that time. Darwin's work should not
be expected to meet modern standards of racial equality.
The history of Creationism is by no means exempt from similar thinking
as well. Racism was preached from the pulpit at the time, and the Bible was
used to support the idea. Blacks were supposed to be the descendants of
Ham, and were therefore "cursed" to serve the "superior" races.
Later evolutionary research proved that all human races are biologically
equal. Changing social mores have led to the rejection of the concept of
one race being superior to any other. The concept it still being held onto,
largely by right wing racist movements ( ironically many of them call
themselves "Patriots" ). Many of them use the Bible to support their
racism.
--
Dana J. Tweedy
(animal bipes implume)
Steven J.
Darwinism leads to racism? Then why is Steven J. Gould so
fanatically anti-racist, and why do his fellow darwinists never
criticize him for this alleged deviation from darwinism? Is it
that Darwinism grew out of racism? Then why did darwinism not
arise in the slaveholding American south, rather than in a
family of abolitionists? That Darwin believed in racism, and
therefore darwinism contains racism as a key doctrine?
The first point which must be made is that darwinism is not a
religion, and Darwin's writings are not its sacred scripture.
Modern darwinists reject Darwin's belief in the inheritance of
aquired characteristics. They reject his belief in "blending
inheritance." They reject his confusion of biological and
cultural evolution, implied in the quote you selected. Modern
darwinism consists of those ideas of Darwin which are in accord
with scientific facts, supplemented by additional discoveries.
Secondly, Darwin believed that blacks were less intelligent than
whites. In this he was joined by nearly every white English
speaker alive in his day. Darwinism was first believed by
racists, as was 19th-century creationism, because no one else
was available to believe it. If you want racist beliefs, try to
find Carroll's 1900 book, "The Negro a Beast," a creationist
tract which ranked whites, blacks, and apes as did Darwin, but
put the dividing line between human and beast between whites and
blacks. There was not a prominent creationist in Darwin's time
who could not match Darwin racist quote for racist quote.
Thirdly, darwinism is intrinsically hostile to racism in a way
that creationism is not. Racism is essentialist, i.e. your race
is a defining trait, and you share something important with
every member of your race and with no member of any other race.
Darwinism is antiessentialist -- there is no trait that every
member of a given group has, and every non-member of that group
lacks. Rather, darwinism has as its central tenet the idea that
variation exists among the members of every race, and that the
differences within each race exceed the average difference
between two races. This is what provides the raw material for
natural selection and evolution. This is why Wallace, who
shared Darwin's beliefs about blacks (they were both white
English speakers, after all), said that "the average Negro has
lower intelligence than the average white man." Any ordinary
racist would have just said, "the Negro is less intelligent than
the white man," but Wallace's acceptance of natural selection
from variation within groups forced him to acknowledge that some
blacks HAD to be smarter than the average white man. No
darwinist could, in good conscience, embrace the ideals of Jim
Crow or the Nuremberg laws, which denied individual variation
and treated "races" as unvarying kinds. True, some darwinists,
like some creationists, fail to act in good conscience.
Creationism, on the other hand, is essentialist. Created
"kinds" share some trait which forever separates them from all
other kinds. Something like the "curse of Ham" can create an
essential trait that unites all members of a "cursed" race, and
separates it from all other races. Show a racist darwinist that
science shows that "races" and racial differences don't really
exist, and he will be forced to abandon his racism or his
darwinism. Show this to a racist creationist -- but if you can
deny that humans and apes are a single biological group, you can
deny, in the face of any evidence, that blacks and whites are a
single race. I do not say that creationism is racist, or that
most creationists are racist. I know that most creationists now
quote the line about "God made all nations from one blood" in
support of racial equality. It was not always so, and on purely
creationist grounds, there is no reason why it must be so.
-- Steven J.
* Sent from RemarQ http://www.remarq.com The Internet's Discussion Network *
The fastest and easiest way to search and participate in Usenet - Free!
wf...@ptd.net
wrote:
>I have been challenged to prove this claim, so here is some evidence.
>Of course, the subtitle of 'origins' is racist, but some deny that
>Darwin was speaking of human races there, so let's go into the body of
>the book itself:
>
>"At some future period (Darwin writes), not very distant as measured by
>centuries, the civilized races of man will almost certainly exterminate
>and replace the savage races throughout the world. At the same time the
>anthropomorphous apes ... 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 civilized state, as we may hope, even
>than the Caucasian, and some ape as low as the baboon, instead of as
>now between the Negro or Australian and the gorilla." (Charles Darwin,
>The Descent of Man 2nd ed (New York: A. L. Burt Co., I 874), p.
>178).
you're too late. this is standard nando ronteltop regurgipost.
and darwin was beaten to the punch by creationists who assumed blacks
were descended from noah's son ham. they invented the 'hamitic
hypothesis' which justified slavery, and predicted whites would, at
some point in the future, replace inferior blacks. this hamitic
hypothesis was also partially responsible for the present day genocide
in rwanda in 1994. in africa's most christian country, 800,000 tutsis
were murdered by their christian neighbors. (see peter gourevitch's
national award winning book).
1/2 of all proslavery tracts were written by the christian clergy
(james mcpherson, battle cry of freedom)
so AP is simply ignorant of history.
Boikat
>
> I don't deny many things can be warped or taken out of context...I was just
> saying you could have come up with a better reply, such as showing how the
> text was taken out of context.
That's the thing about out of context quotes.
Someone can quote five lines from something and
make Mother Theresa like like Hitler's hand
maiden, and it takes 50 lines to show how this is
out of context. Same for the quote trainer
posted.
You can research the quote and what Darwin really
felt towards racial prejudices yourself:
http://www.infidels.org/library/historical/charles_darwin/descent_of_man/
And if you really, really want to know about his
views on such things as slavery, check out "The
Voyage of the Beagle. Skip towards the end where
he leaves South America.
Boikat
>
> ~Matthias
>
> "Boikat" <boi...@bellsouth.net> wrote in message
> news:38EF9EB7...@bellsouth.net...
> > Mapi32 wrote:
> > >
> > > That wasn't a very good answer, in my opinion.
> >
> > Noted. But then again, Trainers interpretation
> > (Or rather, someone else's interpretation, which
> > Trainer fell for) of what Darwin was saying wasn't
> > a very good argument to support his assertion to
> > begin with. If he had actually read "The Descent
> > of Man", rather than just barfing up quoted
> > material out of context, he'd know better.
> >
> > Also, the purpose of my response was to show that
> > *anything* can be warped to support racism.
> > Science, religion, fairy tales. You name it, it
> > can be warped. Including the Bible. Or do you
> > deny that the KKK bases a lot of their philosophy
> > on their interpretation of the Bible?
> >
> > Boikat
> >
> > >
> > > ~Matthias
> > >
> > > > That must be why the KKK caries a burning torch in
> > > > one hand, and "The Descent of Man" in the other.
> > > > No wait. That's not "The Descent of Man", it's
> > > > the Bible.
> > > >
> > > > Boikat
> >
Boikat
> > American Patriot wrote:
> > >
> > > I have been challenged to prove this claim, so here is some evidence.
> > > Of course, the subtitle of 'origins' is racist, but some deny that
> > > Darwin was speaking of human races there, so let's go into the body of
> > > the book itself:
> > >
> > > "At some future period (Darwin writes), not very distant as measured by
> > > centuries, the civilized races of man will almost certainly exterminate
> > > and replace the savage races throughout the world. At the same time the
> > > anthropomorphous apes ... 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 civilized state, as we may hope, even
> > > than the Caucasian, and some ape as low as the baboon, instead of as
> > > now between the Negro or Australian and the gorilla." (Charles Darwin,
> > > The Descent of Man 2nd ed (New York: A. L. Burt Co., I 874), p.
> > > 178).
> > >
> > > between the Negro and the Gorilla, huh? Nothing racist there.
> > > Nosiree. Strictly science.
> >
> > one hand, and "The Descent of Man" in the other.
> > No wait. That's not "The Descent of Man", it's
> > the Bible.
>
That anything can be warped to support any
position.
Boikat
Pat James
(in message <38efd8b5...@news.ptd.net>):
> you're too late. this is standard nando ronteltop regurgipost.
I thought I recognised the smell.
>
> and darwin was beaten to the punch by creationists who assumed blacks were
> descended from noah's son ham. they invented the 'hamitic hypothesis' which
> justified slavery, and predicted whites would, at some point in the future,
> replace inferior blacks. this hamitic hypothesis was also partially
> responsible for the present day genocide in rwanda in 1994. in africa's most
> christian country, 800,000 tutsis were murdered by their christian
> neighbors. (see peter gourevitch's national award winning book).
>
> 1/2 of all proslavery tracts were written by the christian clergy (james
> mcpherson, battle cry of freedom)
>
> so AP is simply ignorant of history.
Well, he's ignorant of everything else, so why should history be an
exception?
--
Scientific creationism: a religious dogma combining massive ignorance with
incredible arrogance.
Creationist: (1) One who follows creationism. (2) A moron. (3) A person
incapable of doing math. (4) A liar. (5) A very gullible true believer.
maff91
>How about Jews? You left them out, racist.
"The folkish-minded man, in particular, has the sacred duty, each in
his own denomination, of making people stop just talking superficially
of God's will, and actually fulfill God's will, and not let God's word
be desecrated.
For God's will gave men their form, their essence, and their
abilities. Anyone who destroys His work is declaring war on the Lord's
creation, the divine will. Therefore, let every man be active, each in
his own denomination if you please, and let every man take it as his
first and most sacred duty to oppose anyone who in his activity by
word or deed steps outside the confines of his religious community and
tries to butt into the other."
.... Hence today I believe that I am acting in accordance with the will
of the Almighty Creator: by defending myself against the Jew, I am
fighting for the work of the Lord."
- Adolf Hitler, "Mein Kampf"
"I am now as before a Catholic and will always remain so..."
- Adolf Hitler
"My feeling as a Christian points me to my Lord and Savior as a
fighter. It points me to the man who once in loneliness, surrounded
only by a few followers, recognized these Jews for what they were and
summoned men to fight against them and who, God's truth! was greatest
not as a sufferer but as a fighter.
In boundless love as a Christian and as a man I read through the
passage which tells us how the Lord at last rose in His might and
seized the scourge to drive out of the Temple the brood of vipers and
adders. How terrific was his fight against the Jewish poison."
Today, after two thousand years, with deepest emotion I recognize more
profoundly than ever before the fact that it was for this that He had
to shed his blood upon the Cross."
As a Christian I have no duty to allow myself to be cheated, but I
have the duty to be a fighter for truth and justice..."
And if there is anything which could demonstrate that we are acting
rightly, it is the distress that daily grows. For as a Christian I
have also a duty to my own people. And when I look on my people I see
them work and work and toil and labor, and at the end of the week they
have only for their wages wretchedness and misery."
When I go out in the morning and see these men standing in their
queues and look into their pinched faces, then I believe I would be no
Christian, but a very devil, if I felt no pity for them, if I did not,
as did our Lord two thousand years ago, turn against those by whom
today this poor people are plundered and exploited."
- Adolf Hitler, "My New Order"
>
> ;-)
>~Matthias
[...]
*****************************************************
Unforgettable Thomas Paine:
"Society in every state is a blessing, but
government, even in its best state, is but a
necessary evil, in its worst state
an intolerable one."
"Of all the tyrannies that affect mankind,
tyranny in religion is the Worst"
"All national institutions of churches, whether
Jewish, Christian or Turkish, appear to me no
other than human inventions, set up to terrify
and enslave mankind, and monopolize power and
profit."
"He that would make his own liberty secure,
must guard even his enemy from oppression;
for if he violates this duty, he establishes
a precedent that will reach to himself"
"A bad cause will ever be supported by
bad means and bad men."
"Moderation in temper is always a virtue;
but moderation in principle is always a
vice."
"War involves in its progress such a train
of unforeseen and unsupposed circumstances
that no human wisdom can calculate its end.
It has but one thing certain and that is to
increase taxes."
"My country is the world"
http://www.infidels.org/library/historical/thomas_paine/age_of_reason/intro.html
http://www.wired.com/wired/archive/3.05/paine.html
*****************************************************
maff91
<sjt1957...@ntslink.net.invalid> wrote:
>I'm not sure what point American Patriot is making. Is it that
>Darwinism leads to racism? Then why is Steven J. Gould so
>fanatically anti-racist, and why do his fellow darwinists never
>criticize him for this alleged deviation from darwinism? Is it
>that Darwinism grew out of racism? Then why did darwinism not
>arise in the slaveholding American south, rather than in a
>family of abolitionists? That Darwin believed in racism, and
>therefore darwinism contains racism as a key doctrine?
".. I was crossing a ferry with a negro, who was uncommonly stupid. In
endeavouring to make him understand, I talked loud, and made signs, in
doing which I passed my hand near his face. He, I suppose, thought I
was in a passion, and was going to strike him; for instantly, with a
frightened look and half-shut eyes, he dropped his hands. I shall
never forget my feelings of surprise, disgust, and shame, at seeing a
great powerful man afraid even to ward off a blow, directed, as he
thought, at his face. This man had been trained to a degradation lower
than the slavery of the most helpless animal. " - Charles Dawin in The
Voyage of the Beagle Chapter 2 - Rio de Janeiro
http://www.literature.org/authors/darwin-charles/the-voyage-of-the-beagle/chapter-02.html
>
>The first point which must be made is that darwinism is not a
>religion, and Darwin's writings are not its sacred scripture.
>Modern darwinists reject Darwin's belief in the inheritance of
>aquired characteristics. They reject his belief in "blending
>inheritance." They reject his confusion of biological and
>cultural evolution, implied in the quote you selected. Modern
>darwinism consists of those ideas of Darwin which are in accord
>with scientific facts, supplemented by additional discoveries.
>
>Secondly, Darwin believed that blacks were less intelligent than
>whites. In this he was joined by nearly every white English
>speaker alive in his day. Darwinism was first believed by
http://www.mediapro.net/cdadesign/paine/afri.html
A number of creationists have stated that evolutionary theory leads
logically to racism. This brief article discusses aspects of leading
ICR creationist Henry Morris's own beliefs that appear to be racist.
Also included is a summary analysis of the racism-creationism
connection by Tom McIver.
http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/racism.html
>deny that humans and apes are a single biological group, you can
>deny, in the face of any evidence, that blacks and whites are a
>single race. I do not say that creationism is racist, or that
>most creationists are racist. I know that most creationists now
>quote the line about "God made all nations from one blood" in
>support of racial equality. It was not always so, and on purely
>creationist grounds, there is no reason why it must be so.
>
>-- Steven J.
"My correspondent thinks with Mr. Jefferson, that Jehovah has no
*****************************************************
"Science is the true theology" -- Thomas Paine
(as quoted in Emerson: The Mind on Fire page 153)
http://www.amazon.com/exec/obidos/ASIN/0520206894/
"The Age of Paine" by Jon Katz
http://www.wired.com/wired/archive/3.05/paine_pr.html
News for Nerds
http://www.slashdot.org/
*****************************************************
Mapi32
~Matthias
"Boikat" <boi...@bellsouth.net> wrote in message
news:38EFEDE4...@bellsouth.net...
American Patriot
"tweedyd" <twe...@cvn.net> wrote:
>
> American Patriot <ttra...@my-deja.com> wrote in message
> news:8co42i$57j$1...@nnrp1.deja.com...
evidence.
> > Of course, the subtitle of 'origins' is racist, but some deny that
> > Darwin was speaking of human races there, so let's go into the body
of
> > the book itself:
> >
> > "At some future period (Darwin writes), not very distant as
measured by
> > centuries, the civilized races of man will almost certainly
exterminate
> > and replace the savage races throughout the world. At the same time
the
> > anthropomorphous apes ... 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 civilized state, as we may hope,
even
> > than the Caucasian, and some ape as low as the baboon, instead of as
> > now between the Negro or Australian and the gorilla." (Charles
Darwin,
> > The Descent of Man 2nd ed (New York: A. L. Burt Co., I 874), p.
> > 178).
> >
> > So the line between human and his nearest relatives falls somewhere
> > between the Negro and the Gorilla, huh? Nothing racist there.
> > Nosiree. Strictly science.
>
context,
In spite of claims to the contrary, no one here has posted
any 'context' that changes the meaning whatsoever. Typically, many
have assigned weeks of reading, but no one has given a context that
changes the meaning.
> one
> must understand the social context also. Darwin lived and worked in
a time
> where racism was accepted. The idea that Caucasans were "superior"
was
> casually assumed by nearly everyone at that time. Darwin's work
should not
> be expected to meet modern standards of racial equality.
His 'work' lent itself well to the furthering of this hateful belief.
It gave a 'scientific' basis to peoples idiotic bigotry.
>
> The history of Creationism is by no means exempt from similar
thinking
> as well. Racism was preached from the pulpit at the time, and the
Bible was
> used to support the idea. Blacks were supposed to be the descendants
of
> Ham, and were therefore "cursed" to serve the "superior" races.
Oops. That belief is the Mormons; and it is not confined to the
nineteenth century, but VERY late in the twentieth, long after 'racism'
fell out of vogue.
>
> Later evolutionary research proved that all human races are
biologically
> equal.
Define 'biologically equal', if you would.
> Changing social mores have led to the rejection of the concept of
> one race being superior to any other. The concept it still being
held onto,
> largely by right wing racist movements ( ironically many of them call
> themselves "Patriots" ).
No offense taken. Many idiot bigots call themselves 'evolutionists'
> Many of them use the Bible to support their
> racism.
Instead of O of S, which is truly racist.
>
> --
> Dana J. Tweedy
> (animal bipes implume)
>
>
--
Dick C.
>I have been challenged to prove this claim, so here is some evidence.
>Of course, the subtitle of 'origins' is racist, but some deny that
>Darwin was speaking of human races there, so let's go into the body of
>the book itself:
Terry, you should know by now that the beliefs of the originators of
scientific theories are irrelevant to science itself. The theories either
stand or fall on their own. It doesn't matter if Charles Darwin was a
fudamentalist christian, or a stalinist. How well his theory explains the
evidence, and whether or not it can be falsified is what matters.
You should also realize, especially after reading all the replies that
he was no more racist than anyone else in England at that time. And much
less so than many Americans. Especially those from the American South,
including Texas.
You are also aware that fundamentalism has itself buried deeply in racism,
modern day racism and bigotry. Almost all of the racist groups hold to a
fundamentalist view of the bible. And the most racist university in the
U.S. is a fundamentalist university.
I have no idea who you are trying to fool with you attempt to tie the TOE
to racism, most people are very much aware of the ties of your religion
to the evils of racism and bigotry. And you provide ample evidence of this
yourself with your bigotry.
>--
>'Professing themselves to be wise, they became fools, and changed the
>glory of the uncorruptible God into an image made like to corruptible
>man, and to birds, and four footed beasts, and creeping things'
>Saint Paul
I like your sig, Terry. It is so descriptive of you.
--
Dick #1349
People think that libraries are safe places, but they're not,
they have ideas.
email: dic...@uswest.net
Homepage http://www.users.uswest.net/~dickcr/
Dave Holloway
wrote:
>I have been challenged to prove this claim, so here is some evidence.
>Of course, the subtitle of 'origins' is racist, but some deny that
>Darwin was speaking of human races there, so let's go into the body of
>the book itself:
>
>"At some future period (Darwin writes), not very distant as measured by
>centuries, the civilized races of man will almost certainly exterminate
>and replace the savage races throughout the world. At the same time the
>anthropomorphous apes ... 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 civilized state, as we may hope, even
>than the Caucasian, and some ape as low as the baboon, instead of as
>now between the Negro or Australian and the gorilla." (Charles Darwin,
>The Descent of Man 2nd ed (New York: A. L. Burt Co., I 874), p.
>178).
>
>So the line between human and his nearest relatives falls somewhere
>between the Negro and the Gorilla, huh? Nothing racist there.
>Nosiree. Strictly science.
>
Argument from Undesirable Consequences. Your argument is that we
should reject evolution because it would turn people into racists.
Even if that were the case -- and you seem to have gotten slammed in
that area -- it would not affect the truth of evolution one whit.
Evolution occured, period.
Dave
--
From the warped mind of Dave Holloway:
Quotemeister
a.a. #1184
Director of Defense and Sabotage, EAC Mars Division
Disgruntled Merkin
"Gish's Law: As the fossil record becomes more complete,
the number of gaps in it will increase."
wf...@ptd.net
wrote:
>In article <38ef...@news.desupernet.net>,
> "tweedyd" <twe...@cvn.net> wrote:
>>
.. The idea that Caucasans were "superior"
>was
>> casually assumed by nearly everyone at that time. Darwin's work
>should not
>> be expected to meet modern standards of racial equality.
>
>His 'work' lent itself well to the furthering of this hateful belief.
>It gave a 'scientific' basis to peoples idiotic bigotry.
gee...imagine...scientists can be racists...
creationists make another remarkable discovery...
>
>>
>> The history of Creationism is by no means exempt from similar
>thinking
>> as well. Racism was preached from the pulpit at the time, and the
>Bible was
>> used to support the idea. Blacks were supposed to be the descendants
>of
>> Ham, and were therefore "cursed" to serve the "superior" races.
>
>Oops. That belief is the Mormons; and it is not confined to the
>nineteenth century, but VERY late in the twentieth, long after 'racism'
>fell out of vogue.
wrong. absolutely wrong
where you getting those bizarre ideas? the hamitic hypothesis preceded
mormonism. and the hamitic hypothesis was used by catholics and
protestants in 1994 rwanda to justify genocide there.
i realize creationists like to make up history and science, but that's
ridiculous.
>
Elephant
others are doing in this thread, I'd rather look at some other aspects of
what is said herein...
American Patriot wrote:
> "At some future period (Darwin writes), not very distant as measured by
> centuries, the civilized races of man will almost certainly exterminate
> and replace the savage races throughout the world. At the same time the
> anthropomorphous apes ... will no doubt be exterminated..." (Charles
> Darwin,
> The Descent of Man 2nd ed (New York: A. L. Burt Co., I 874), p.
> 178).
This much is happening, as Darwin foretold. Was he a prophet of the
Almighty? Or a scientific revolutionary who had the vision to see
something of the future through his budding theory? Looks like he made an
accurate prediction, on a grand scale: the "savage races" have been
marginalized worldwide, and their savagery much tempered with the fruits of
"civilization", while the great apes are on the verge of extinction.
--
~to reply by e-mail, remove the obvious spam blocker~
Mark Isaak
American Patriot <ttra...@my-deja.com> wrote:
>I have been challenged to prove this claim, so here is some evidence.
Okay, I will grant that Darwin was every bit as racist as Abraham
Lincoln. What of it? What does that have to do with evolution?
Schockly was far, far more racist. Does that mean transistors don't work,
or just that we should never use them?
--
Mark Isaak atta @ best.com http://www.best.com/~atta
"My determination is not to remain stubbornly with my ideas but
I'll leave them and go over to others as soon as I am shown
plausible reason which I can grasp." - Antony Leeuwenhoek
tweedyd
> > news:8co42i$57j$1...@nnrp1.deja.com...
> evidence.
> > > Darwin was speaking of human races there, so let's go into the body
> of
> > > the book itself:
> > >
> measured by
> > > centuries, the civilized races of man will almost certainly
> exterminate
> > > and replace the savage races throughout the world. At the same time
> the
> > > between man and his nearest Allies will then be wider, for it will
> > > intervene between man in a more civilized state, as we may hope,
> even
> > > than the Caucasian, and some ape as low as the baboon, instead of as
> Darwin,
> > > The Descent of Man 2nd ed (New York: A. L. Burt Co., I 874), p.
> > > 178).
> > >
> > > between the Negro and the Gorilla, huh? Nothing racist there.
> > > Nosiree. Strictly science.
> >
> context,
>
> In spite of claims to the contrary, no one here has posted
> any 'context' that changes the meaning whatsoever. Typically, many
> have assigned weeks of reading, but no one has given a context that
> changes the meaning.
Surely you can understand that taking a quote out of it's context can
clearly change the meaning.
>
> > one
> > must understand the social context also. Darwin lived and worked in
> a time
> > where racism was accepted. The idea that Caucasans were "superior"
> was
> > casually assumed by nearly everyone at that time. Darwin's work
> should not
> > be expected to meet modern standards of racial equality.
>
> His 'work' lent itself well to the furthering of this hateful belief.
> It gave a 'scientific' basis to peoples idiotic bigotry.
People's bigotry does not need any basis to survive. They will use whatever
they can to support their personal hatred. Darwin is not responsable for
what misuses his theory is put to, any more than the teachings of Christ are
responable for the horrors of the Inquisition.
>
> >
> > The history of Creationism is by no means exempt from similar
> thinking
> > as well. Racism was preached from the pulpit at the time, and the
> Bible was
> > used to support the idea. Blacks were supposed to be the descendants
> of
> > Ham, and were therefore "cursed" to serve the "superior" races.
>
> Oops. That belief is the Mormons; and it is not confined to the
> nineteenth century, but VERY late in the twentieth, long after 'racism'
> fell out of vogue.
Sorry, wrong answer. The Hamitic philosophy was used back to the days of
slavery. People who wanted to believe in racism used the bible to support
their views as well.
>
> >
> > Later evolutionary research proved that all human races are
> biologically
> > equal.
>
> Define 'biologically equal', if you would.
Ok, the words are quite common, you might try a dictionary. The phrase
means that all humans are the same (that is what equal means) in all their
life processes (that is what biologically means). Science has found that
racial differences in humans are entirely superficial (that means not
important). The concept of evolution is in no way used (by scientists) to
imply that any race is "better".
>
> > Changing social mores have led to the rejection of the concept of
> > one race being superior to any other. The concept it still being
> held onto,
> > largely by right wing racist movements ( ironically many of them call
> > themselves "Patriots" ).
>
> No offense taken. Many idiot bigots call themselves 'evolutionists'
I would submit that an understanding of evolution tends to go against
bigotry. Evolutionary theory states we are all members of the same species,
and that races are not important.
>
> > Many of them use the Bible to support their
> > racism.
>
> Instead of O of S, which is truly racist.
Origin of Species is no more racist than plumbing. Racism predates Darwin
by centuries.
Bloody Viking
: So the line between human and his nearest relatives falls somewhere
: between the Negro and the Gorilla, huh? Nothing racist there.
: Nosiree. Strictly science.
Sometimes science is made for the wrong motive. Look how we furless apes
had, just HAD, to build an atom bomb before building a nuke powerplant.
And of course, we furless apes had to lob two of these bombs on our fellow
furless apes.
If Darwin was racist as that piece shows, Darwin was doing science for a
crappy motive. And so was the Manhatten Project done up for a bad motive.
--
CAUTION: Email Spam Killer in use. Leave this line in your reply! 152680
First Law of Economics: You can't sell product to people without money.
4968238 bytes of spam mail deleted. http://www.wwa.com/~nospam/
Pat James
(in message <38f0a4b8$0$2...@nntp1.ba.best.com>):
> In article <8co42i$57j$1...@nnrp1.deja.com>,
> American Patriot <ttra...@my-deja.com> wrote:
>> I have been challenged to prove this claim, so here is some evidence.
>> [quote from _Descent of Man_ deleted.]
>
> Okay, I will grant that Darwin was every bit as racist as Abraham
> Lincoln. What of it? What does that have to do with evolution?
> Schockly was far, far more racist. Does that mean transistors don't work,
> or just that we should never use them?
It certainly means that _Terry_ shouldn't use 'em. He's the ol' boy who's
pushing this "can't touch the products of someone who was a Bad Boy" crap.
Turn off that computer, Terry. And your TV. And your radio. And your VCR...
You car (especially yuor car; have a look at what Henry Ford got away with.
Ban all products the diseased system known as 'mass production' now! Such
evil(tm) must not be tolerated!)
Paul Gate
American Patriot <ttra...@my-deja.com> wrote in message
news:8cotnq$vtm$1...@nnrp1.deja.com...
> In article <38ef...@news.desupernet.net>,
> "tweedyd" <twe...@cvn.net> wrote:
> >
> > American Patriot <ttra...@my-deja.com> wrote in message
> > news:8co42i$57j$1...@nnrp1.deja.com...
> > Assuming that this quote is correct, and that it is in fact in
> context,
>
> In spite of claims to the contrary, no one here has posted
> any 'context' that changes the meaning whatsoever. Typically, many
> have assigned weeks of reading, but no one has given a context that
> changes the meaning.
>
> > one
> > must understand the social context also. Darwin lived and worked in
> a time
> > where racism was accepted. The idea that Caucasans were "superior"
> was
> > casually assumed by nearly everyone at that time. Darwin's work
> should not
> > be expected to meet modern standards of racial equality.
>
> His 'work' lent itself well to the furthering of this hateful belief.
> It gave a 'scientific' basis to peoples idiotic bigotry.
That is unfortunate...and your point?
ZeldaG
>From: American Patriot ttra...@my-deja.com
>Date: 4/8/2000 8:34 PM Pacific Daylight Time
>Message-id: <8cotnq$vtm$1...@nnrp1.deja.com>
>> > So the line between human and his nearest relatives falls somewhere
>> > between the Negro and the Gorilla, huh? Nothing racist there.
>> > Nosiree. Strictly science.
>>
>context,
>
>In spite of claims to the contrary, no one here has posted
>any 'context' that changes the meaning whatsoever. Typically, many
>have assigned weeks of reading, but no one has given a context that
>changes the meaning.
racist today, most Europeans thought it was fact.
>His 'work' lent itself well to the furthering of this hateful belief.
>It gave a 'scientific' basis to peoples idiotic bigotry.
Not at all. People (like yourself) would love to have seen Darwin quote or say
anything that would have given actual scientific weight to the biases of his
day. That the regurgipost of Nando's is the best you creationists can come up
with shows just how weak your argument is. One has only to see just voluminous
Darwin's writings are, and the depth of scholarship, to see that racism was not
on his agenda.
>> Later evolutionary research proved that all human races are
>biologically
>> equal.
>
>Define 'biologically equal', if you would.
>
>> Changing social mores have led to the rejection of the concept of
>> one race being superior to any other. The concept it still being
>held onto,
>> largely by right wing racist movements ( ironically many of them call
>> themselves "Patriots" ).
>
>No offense taken. Many idiot bigots call themselves 'evolutionists'
>
>> Many of them use the Bible to support their
>> racism.
>
>Instead of O of S, which is truly racist.
I realize I'm wasting my time with a hatemongering know-nothing, but in looking
over Darwin's chapter on races, I found this quote. In the process of
reviewing the chapter, it was obvious that racism was the furthest thing from
Darwin's mind. Indeed, he seemed to go to extreme pains to avoid the topic.
The imputing of racism is far more important to the minds of Creationists,
seeking to discredit Darwin. This is really very sad as it is clear that
Darwin was someone of extraordinary intellect and scholarship, utterly
undeserving of Creationists cheesy smear tactics.
Yes, this is the quote of a racist:
He who will read Mr. Tylor's and Sir J. Lubbock's interesting works*can hardly
fail to be deeply impressed with the close similaritybetween the men of all
races in tastes, dispositions and habits.This is shown by the pleasure which
they all take in dancing, rudemusic, acting, painting, tattooing, and otherwise
decorating themselves; in their mutual comprehension of gesture-language, by
the same expression in their features, and by the same inarticulate cries, when
excited by the same emotions. This similarity, or rather identity, is striking,
when contrasted with the differentexpressions and cries made by distinct
species of monkeys.
Jonathan Stone
maff91 <maf...@nospam.my-deja.com> wrote:
>On 8 Apr 2000 19:38:47 -0400, "Mapi32" <mapno...@home.com> wrote:
>
>>How about Jews? You left them out, racist.
>
>"The folkish-minded man, in particular, has the sacred duty, each in
>his own denomination, of making people stop just talking superficially
>of God's will, and actually fulfill God's will, and not let God's word
>be desecrated.
>
>For God's will gave men their form, their essence, and their
>abilities. Anyone who destroys His work is declaring war on the Lord's
>creation, the divine will. Therefore, let every man be active, each in
>his own denomination if you please, and let every man take it as his
>first and most sacred duty to oppose anyone who in his activity by
>word or deed steps outside the confines of his religious community and
>tries to butt into the other."
>
>.... Hence today I believe that I am acting in accordance with the will
>of the Almighty Creator: by defending myself against the Jew, I am
>fighting for the work of the Lord."
>
>- Adolf Hitler, "Mein Kampf"
[snip more quotes]
Maff, if you're going to quote translations, you should cite the
translator as well as the author. (publisher edition and page-nos
would be nice, too).
White Raven
dold...@ocean.coastalw.com (Dave Oldridge) wrote:
> ttra...@my-deja.com (American Patriot) wrote in
> <8co42i$57j$1...@nnrp1.deja.com>:
>
> >Darwin was speaking of human races there, so let's go into the body
of
> >the book itself:
> >
> >"At some future period (Darwin writes), not very distant as measured
by
> >centuries, the civilized races of man will almost certainly
exterminate
> >and replace the savage races throughout the world. At the same time
the
> >anthropomorphous apes ... 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 civilized state, as we may hope, even
> >than the Caucasian, and some ape as low as the baboon, instead of as
> >now between the Negro or Australian and the gorilla." (Charles
Darwin,
> >The Descent of Man 2nd ed (New York: A. L. Burt Co., I 874), p.
> >178).
> >
> >between the Negro and the Gorilla, huh? Nothing racist there.
> >Nosiree. Strictly science.
>
> contemporaries does not change the scientific evaluation of evidence
> presently in hand. This whole argument is a false appeal to
emotional biases
> and has actually been made from both sides (depending what the arguer
thinks
> the bias of his hearers is).
>
> Hitler claimed alternately to be Christian and Darwinist. Neither
claim made
> his hollow earth theories any more or less scientific.
>
This is the proper response to these claims. Being a product of you
culture is not a crime nor does it invalidate the woth of your work.
One need only count the slave owning singitors of the constitution to
see this.
--
White Raven... Sad as a lonely little wrinkled balloon.
Fact: A state or an event.
Theory: Our explanation of a fact.
Beliefe: What we wish the facts were.
Bartman
> Of course, the subtitle of 'origins' is racist, but some deny that
> Darwin was speaking of human races there, so let's go into the body of
> the book itself:
>
> "At some future period (Darwin writes), not very distant as measured
by
> centuries, the civilized races of man will almost certainly
exterminate
> and replace the savage races throughout the world. At the same time
the
> anthropomorphous apes ... 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 civilized state, as we may hope, even
> than the Caucasian, and some ape as low as the baboon, instead of as
> now between the Negro or Australian and the gorilla." (Charles
Darwin,
> The Descent of Man 2nd ed (New York: A. L. Burt Co., I 874), p.
> 178).
>
> So the line between human and his nearest relatives falls somewhere
> between the Negro and the Gorilla, huh? Nothing racist there.
> Nosiree. Strictly science.
>
>
> --
> 'Professing themselves to be wise, they became fools, and changed the
> glory of the uncorruptible God into an image made like to corruptible
> man, and to birds, and four footed beasts, and creeping things'
> Saint Paul
>
They can either be true or false.
Regards,
Bartman
American Patriot
First - love your handle!
Second - how about the theory that the superman could be bred by
exterminating all those with inferior genes? How about the theory that
the problems in germany were brought about by the Jewish blood, so they
all had to be killed? Or, for that matter, how about the theory that
the white Europeans are the TRUE Jews, and those now claiming to be
Jewish need to be exterminated (CI movement in the states)? Or how
about the theory that the Blacks are the cause of all our problems, so
we need to exterminate them (KKK, others).
I would be more inclined to contend, Bartman, that racism itself is
ALWAYS part of a theory, a belief, rather than being part of an
individual. I don't think anyone is born a racist, I think it is
something they aquire as part of their belief system. During my brief
stint as a racist, it was 100% due to the erronious information I had
been taught in the little northern town I grew up in. All the high
prices were due to the ethnic group that ran the stores there; all the
high taxes were due to the ethnic groups that lived on welfare, etc.
All it took to dispell it was to get out of the area I was born in, and
see what the real world was like.
In my adult life, I've never met a person I hated. I have ran across
several ideas I hate, however.
Shaloam
AmPat
Steven J.
<ttra...@my-deja.com> wrote:
>In article <8csbhd$i9e$1...@nnrp1.deja.com>,
>Bartman <bartm...@my-deja.com> wrote:
-- [snip]
>> Only conscious beings can be rascist. Theories are abstract
>> concepts.
>> They can either be true or false.
>>
>> Regards,
>>
>> Bartman
>>
-- [snip]
>
>First - love your handle!
>
>Second - how about the theory that the superman could be bred by
>exterminating all those with inferior genes? How about the
>theory that the problems in germany were brought about by the
>Jewish blood, so they all had to be killed? Or, for that
>matter, how about the theory that the white Europeans are the
>TRUE Jews, and those now claiming to be Jewish need to be
>exterminated (CI movement in the states)? Or how about the
>theory that the Blacks are the cause of all our problems, so
>we need to exterminate them (KKK, others).
Darwinism is about natural selection. Breeding the superman is
about artificial selection, and could occur to anyone who had
ever bred plants or animals -- or to racist loons who had read
about breeding plants and animals. Good darwinists worried
about the misuse of their ideas to promote eugenics -- when
early 20th century American eugenicists were spouting slogans
like "more children from the fit, fewer from the unfit," it was
the leading darwinists of the day who pointed out that in strict
darwinian terms, the "fittest" WERE the ones who produced the
most offspring; government biological coercion was unneeded.
I have explained to you -- were you paying attention? -- that
concepts like "Jewish blood" and "inferior race" are gibberish
is darwinian terms. There cannot be any such thing as a
"superior race," only individuals with superior traits for a
particular environment. No idea could be deadlier to a racist
totalitarian ideology than that one. That the Nazis
occasionally spiced up their rhetoric with Darwinian jargon they
didn't BEGIN to understand proves neither that Naziism was a
logical consequence of Darwinism, nor that the Nazis ever TRIED
to be good darwinists. The KKK and the Christian Identity
movement don't even claim to base their particular claims of
darwinism; both groups are good creationists (well, okay, lousy
creationists, but anyway not evolutionists).
I do not think racism grows out of biological (or, for that
matter, theological) theories. It may grow out of bad economic
theories -- "the more there is for them, the less there is for
us," leading to attempts to find a "them" that "we" can cheat,
exploit, and blame for our problems. Racism seeks excuses, and
finds them in garbled versions of ideas popular in a culture.
The ideas come AFTER the individual's, or societies, need to
hate someone. Note that in America, racism grew out of the need
to justify the conquest of the aboriginal peoples and the
enslavement of Black Americans. This was first justified on
biblical grounds; later some attempt to create a "scientific"
racism was made. Darwinism was not the reason, barely even the
excuse, just a source for some jargon.
>I would be more inclined to contend, Bartman, that racism
>itself is ALWAYS part of a theory, a belief, rather than being
>part of an individual. I don't think anyone is born a racist,
>I think it is something they aquire as part of their belief
>system. During my brief stint as a racist, it was 100% due to
>the erronious information I had been taught in the little
>northern town I grew up in. All the high prices were due to
>the ethnic group that ran the stores there; all the high taxes
>were due to the ethnic groups that lived on welfare, etc.
>All it took to dispell it was to get out of the area I was born
>in, and see what the real world was like.
Then, in fact, darwinism had nothing to do with any actual
racism you felt or experienced? Have you ever actually met a
racist who justified his attitudes with darwinism? Have you
ever met anyone, who was not a racist as a creationist, who
accepted darwinism, and then became a racist?
>In my adult life, I've never met a person I hated. I have ran
>across several ideas I hate, however.
You mean, like the idea that evidence and logical thought are
superior to random assertions which vaguely support your
prejudices?
>
>Shaloam
>
>AmPat
acker james
: I have been challenged to prove this claim, so here is some evidence.
: Of course, the subtitle of 'origins' is racist, but some deny that
: Darwin was speaking of human races there, so let's go into the body of
: the book itself:
: "At some future period (Darwin writes), not very distant as measured by
: centuries, the civilized races of man will almost certainly exterminate
: and replace the savage races throughout the world. At the same time the
: anthropomorphous apes ... 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 civilized state, as we may hope, even
: than the Caucasian, and some ape as low as the baboon, instead of as
: now between the Negro or Australian and the gorilla." (Charles Darwin,
: The Descent of Man 2nd ed (New York: A. L. Burt Co., I 874), p.
: 178).
: So the line between human and his nearest relatives falls somewhere
: between the Negro and the Gorilla, huh? Nothing racist there.
: Nosiree. Strictly science.
Terry,
Read this:
http://earth.ics.uci.edu/faqs/racism.html
and then decide if you still want to be associated with the
arch-creationists at the ICR.
Jim Acker
*** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** ***
Jim Acker
jac...@gl.umbc.edu
A second flood, a simple famine, plagues of locusts everywhere,
Or a cataclysmic earthquake, I'd accept with some despair.
But no, you sent us Congress! Good God, sir, was that fair?
--- John Adams, "Piddle, Twiddle, and Resolve", from the
musical "1776"
Dick C
<jac...@umbc8.umbc.edu> wrote:
>American Patriot <ttra...@my-deja.com> wrote:
>: I have been challenged to prove this claim, so here is some
evidence.
>: Of course, the subtitle of 'origins' is racist, but some deny
that
>: Darwin was speaking of human races there, so let's go into the
body of
>: the book itself:
>
>
somewhere
>: between the Negro and the Gorilla, huh? Nothing racist there.
>: Nosiree. Strictly science.
>
> Terry,
>
> Read this:
>
>
>http://earth.ics.uci.edu/faqs/racism.html
>
> and then decide if you still want to be associated with
the
>arch-creationists at the ICR.
You see, Terry doesn't care if anyone from his side is racist or
not, as he is bigoted to begin with. He is just trying to drag
the TOE into the same pigsty as his religious beliefs.
Dick #1349
People think that libraries are safe places, but they're not,
they have ideas. Homepage http://www.users.uswest.net/~dickcr/
email: dic...@uswest.net