the Racist Roots of Evolution.

19 views
Skip to first unread message

American Patriot

unread,
Apr 8, 2000, 3:00:00 AM4/8/00
to
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

--
'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

unread,
Apr 8, 2000, 3:00:00 AM4/8/00
to
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.

Boikat

Mapi32

unread,
Apr 8, 2000, 3:00:00 AM4/8/00
to
That wasn't a very good answer, in my opinion.

~Matthias

Larry Handlin

unread,
Apr 8, 2000, 3:00:00 AM4/8/00
to
On 8 Apr 2000 16:16:46 -0400, American Patriot <ttra...@my-deja.com>
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.
>
>Terry

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

unread,
Apr 8, 2000, 3:00:00 AM4/8/00
to
ttra...@my-deja.com (American Patriot) wrote in
<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

unread,
Apr 8, 2000, 3:00:00 AM4/8/00
to
"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.........?


Boikat

unread,
Apr 8, 2000, 3:00:00 AM4/8/00
to
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


Micheal Keane

unread,
Apr 8, 2000, 3:00:00 AM4/8/00
to
ttra...@my-deja.com (American Patriot) wrote in
<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:

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

unread,
Apr 8, 2000, 3:00:00 AM4/8/00
to
ae...@yahoo.com (Micheal Keane) wrote in
<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

unread,
Apr 8, 2000, 3:00:00 AM4/8/00
to
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.

~Matthias


"Boikat" <boi...@bellsouth.net> wrote in message

news:38EF9EB7...@bellsouth.net...

Schalk

unread,
Apr 8, 2000, 3:00:00 AM4/8/00
to
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.
>

maff91

unread,
Apr 8, 2000, 3:00:00 AM4/8/00
to
On 8 Apr 2000 17:06:42 -0400, "Jesse Fahl" <jfa...@home.com> wrote:

>"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

unread,
Apr 8, 2000, 3:00:00 AM4/8/00
to
How about Jews? You left them out, racist.

;-)
~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

unread,
Apr 8, 2000, 3:00:00 AM4/8/00
to
>Subject: the Racist Roots of Evolution.
>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

unread,
Apr 8, 2000, 3:00:00 AM4/8/00
to

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.


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.

unread,
Apr 8, 2000, 3:00:00 AM4/8/00
to
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?

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

unread,
Apr 8, 2000, 3:00:00 AM4/8/00
to
On 8 Apr 2000 16:16:46 -0400, 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:
>
>"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

unread,
Apr 8, 2000, 3:00:00 AM4/8/00
to
Mapi32 wrote:
>
> 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

unread,
Apr 8, 2000, 3:00:00 AM4/8/00
to
Jesse Fahl wrote:
>
> "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.........?

That anything can be warped to support any
position.

Boikat


Pat James

unread,
Apr 8, 2000, 3:00:00 AM4/8/00
to
On Sat, 8 Apr 2000 20:14:16 -0500, wf...@ptd.net wrote
(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

unread,
Apr 8, 2000, 3:00:00 AM4/8/00
to
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"

"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

unread,
Apr 8, 2000, 3:00:00 AM4/8/00
to
On 8 Apr 2000 20:36:58 -0400, "Steven J."
<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

unread,
Apr 8, 2000, 3:00:00 AM4/8/00
to
Thank you, that was much better!

~Matthias

"Boikat" <boi...@bellsouth.net> wrote in message

news:38EFEDE4...@bellsouth.net...

American Patriot

unread,
Apr 8, 2000, 3:00:00 AM4/8/00
to
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...
> > 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.
>
> 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.

>
> 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.

unread,
Apr 9, 2000, 3:00:00 AM4/9/00
to
ttra...@my-deja.com (American Patriot) wrote in
<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:

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

unread,
Apr 9, 2000, 3:00:00 AM4/9/00
to
On 8 Apr 2000 16:16:46 -0400, 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:
>

>"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

http://welcome.to/thinking

"Gish's Law: As the fossil record becomes more complete,
the number of gaps in it will increase."


wf...@ptd.net

unread,
Apr 9, 2000, 3:00:00 AM4/9/00
to
On 8 Apr 2000 23:34:36 -0400, American Patriot <ttra...@my-deja.com>
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

unread,
Apr 9, 2000, 3:00:00 AM4/9/00
to
Rather than debate the racist nature of Darwin's out-of-context quote, as
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

unread,
Apr 9, 2000, 3:00:00 AM4/9/00
to
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?
--
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

unread,
Apr 9, 2000, 3:00:00 AM4/9/00
to

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...
> > > 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.
> >
> > 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.

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

unread,
Apr 9, 2000, 3:00:00 AM4/9/00
to
American Patriot <ttra...@my-deja.com> wrote:

: 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

unread,
Apr 9, 2000, 3:00:00 AM4/9/00
to
On Sun, 9 Apr 2000 10:42:09 -0500, Mark Isaak wrote
(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

unread,
Apr 9, 2000, 3:00:00 AM4/9/00
to

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

unread,
Apr 10, 2000, 3:00:00 AM4/10/00
to
>Subject: Re: the Racist Roots of Evolution.
>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.
>>
>> 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.

Both the social and the scientific contexts have been given. While they are
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

unread,
Apr 10, 2000, 3:00:00 AM4/10/00
to
In article <v9tveso3crlgpj3h9...@4ax.com>,

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

unread,
Apr 10, 2000, 3:00:00 AM4/10/00
to
In article <8F10B6717doldr...@142.77.1.194>,

dold...@ocean.coastalw.com (Dave Oldridge) wrote:
> ttra...@my-deja.com (American Patriot) wrote in
> <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.
>

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

unread,
Apr 10, 2000, 3:00:00 AM4/10/00
to
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.
> 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.
>
Only conscious beings can be rascist. Theories are abstract concepts.
They can either be true or false.

Regards,

Bartman

American Patriot

unread,
Apr 10, 2000, 3:00:00 AM4/10/00
to
In article <8csbhd$i9e$1...@nnrp1.deja.com>,

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.

unread,
Apr 10, 2000, 3:00:00 AM4/10/00
to
In article <8csfg7$m9v$1...@nnrp1.deja.com>, American Patriot

<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

unread,
Apr 10, 2000, 3:00:00 AM4/10/00
to
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:

: "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

unread,
Apr 10, 2000, 3:00:00 AM4/10/00
to
In article <8csvfc$qq0n$5...@news.umbc.edu>, acker james

<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:
>
>
>: 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.

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

Mitchell Coffey

unread,
Apr 10, 2000, 3:00:00 AM4/10/00
to
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.
> 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:

I assume someone has pointed out already that your quote below is not
from "Origins of the Species", as you claim. Thus it does not support
your false claim that "the subtitle of 'origins' is racist". I assume
that, because you are an honest person, you will correct yourself.


> "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


Can you name three leading creationist in 1870 who did not hold
similar, racist views? How about 1965? When did your state of Texas
remove from its laws its prohibition on inter-ratial marrage? Why did
it have to be forced by the Supreme Court to do so?

Mitchell Coffey
_____________________________________________________
"Nostalgia is the handmaiden of fascism"

- Mary Gordon

Mitchell Coffey

unread,
Apr 10, 2000, 3:00:00 AM4/10/00
to
In article <8cotnq$vtm$1...@nnrp1.deja.com>,

American Patriot <ttra...@my-deja.com> wrote:
> 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...

> > > 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, ...
[snip]

>
> Instead of O of S, which is truly racist.

[snip]


The quote you are using is not from the "Origin of the Species".

Dave Haas

unread,
Apr 10, 2000, 3:00:00 AM4/10/00
to
In article <8co42i$57j$1...@nnrp1.deja.com>, ttra...@my-deja.com says...

> 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.
>

Darwin was a product of his society just as the bible was. We know much
more today about the relationship between various groups of humans than was
known in the past. For some reason humans have this instinct to feel their
particular group or race is better than others. The same goes for various
religions. As you know some religions do not get along too well with each
other. Darwin also did not have the correct idea about how inheritance
worked. This does not mean that he was wrong about everything else.

Scientists have the same faults and instincts as do non scientists. They
have pet theories and make mistakes. It's the scientific method and peer
review that makes science a better way to find out about the world.
Religion uses the truth from authority method like earlier cultures. If God
or the medicine man says it is true it's true. Science tries to test ideas
before accepting them. Even then ideas can change as we learn more.
Religion never changes. God never changes. This is one reason science and
God don't mix too well.

Just remember everybody uses the scientific method to solve problems not
just scientists. What do you do when you get sick? Blame it on a black
cat? Germs? or the devil?

D. Haas


Mitchell Coffey

unread,
Apr 10, 2000, 3:00:00 AM4/10/00
to
In article <8F1095209a...@207.217.77.24>,
ae...@yahoo.com (Micheal Keane) wrote:
> ae...@yahoo.com (Micheal Keane) wrote in
> <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..."
>
> >It has nothing to do with evolution or democracy today

What you should have written was "Darwin was rather less racist than
most people in that era." This alleged patriot is not quoting "Origin
of the Species" as he claims. He is quoting "Decent of Man", which
also contains numerous condemnations of slavery, as do other of
Darwin's works. It also contains the following passage, remarkable for
1870:

"Although the existing races of man differ in many respects, as in
colour, hair, shape of skull, proportions of the body, &c., yet if
their whole structure be taken into consideration they are found to
resemble each other closely in a multitude of points. Many of these are
of so unimportant or of so singular a nature, that it is extremely
improbable that they should have been independently acquired by
aboriginally distinct species or races. The same remark holds good with
equal or greater force with respect to the numerous points of mental
similarity between the most distinct races of man. The American
aborigines, Negroes and Europeans are as different from each other in
mind as any three races that can be named; yet I was incessantly
struck, whilst living with the Feugians on board the Beagle, with the
many little traits of character, shewing how similar their minds were
to ours; and so it was with a full-blooded negro with whom I happened
once to be intimate." Descent of Man, chpt 1, 1871.

Mitchell Coffey

unread,
Apr 10, 2000, 3:00:00 AM4/10/00
to
In article <8RSH4.110381$Tn4.7...@news1.rdc2.pa.home.com>,

"Mapi32" <mapno...@home.com> wrote:
> Thank you, that was much better!
>
> ~Matthias

Darwin makes anti-slavery comments in Descent of Man, as well as in
Voyage of the Beagle. However, I find the following one of the more
remarkable quotes regarding race from _Descent_:

"Although the existing races of man differ in many respects, as in
colour, hair, shape of skull, proportions of the body, &c., yet if
their whole structure be taken into consideration they are found to
resemble each other closely in a multitude of points. Many of these are
of so unimportant or of so singular a nature, that it is extremely
improbable that they should have been independently acquired by
aboriginally distinct species or races. The same remark holds good with
equal or greater force with respect to the numerous points of mental
similarity between the most distinct races of man. The American
aborigines, Negroes and Europeans are as different from each other in
mind as any three races that can be named; yet I was incessantly
struck, whilst living with the Feugians on board the Beagle, with the
many little traits of character, shewing how similar their minds were
to ours; and so it was with a full-blooded negro with whom I happened
once to be intimate." Descent of Man, chpt 1, 1871.

As you can see, out-of-context quotation can be very misleading.

wf...@ptd.net

unread,
Apr 10, 2000, 3:00:00 AM4/10/00
to
On 10 Apr 2000 07:56:02 -0400, American Patriot <ttra...@my-deja.com>
wrote:
>

>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?

ah, yes, the 'limpieza de sangre'....invented by spanish catholics in
the 16th century...of course they didnt kill ALL the jews..they just
threw them out of the country...long before darwin came along. racist
views of jews were present long before darwin. read about luther's
views of jews at:

http://home.flash.net/~twinkle/psycho/DARK/recreational/luther.html

as far as i know, luther wasnt a darwinist either. he sure did hate
jews. and he was german.


John Wilkins

unread,
Apr 10, 2000, 3:00:00 AM4/10/00
to
In article <14d99a88...@usw-ex0102-013.remarq.com>, "Steven J."
<sjt1957...@ntslink.net.invalid> wrote:

|In article <8csfg7$m9v$1...@nnrp1.deja.com>, American Patriot


|<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

Consider the views of those who stressed "good blood" and "good breeding"
for centuries, all the way back as far as we have any record. Each era used
the language and fashionable concepts of the day, including animal
husbandry, astrological dominance (in the Mesopotamian valley), ethnic
difference (always), theology (mainly Christian, but one suspects that the
Jewish interdictions against miscegenation, although socially necessary to
the survival of the religion, are implicitly racist), cultural (the
"obvious" superiority of European civilisation), and eventually, when it
arrived, biology.

Interestingly, an early biologist, Buffon, argued against the prevailing
(French) biological racism that there was no biological difference between
races worthy of note. So, too, did Darwin and more importantly Wallace, who
mixes a curious cultural imperialism with biological egalitarianism which
is only occasional and vague in Darwin. Compare his views with that of
Agassiz or Galton and there is a marked difference.

But I think that apart from the fact that neither evolution nor
Christianity caused racism but have always been drawn into service of it,
the interesting thing is that the motivation for racism is always, IMO,
economic and political. One only hates or denigrates those who are needed
in a subservient role or are threatening one's political power or in order
to justify theft from those others. To this end, scientific ideas, half
digested, are as useful as misinterpretations and wanton abuse of sacred
writings.

But note that the idea that there *are* no races, only geographical
variants that defy simple classification, is an outcome of the very biology
and anthropology AmPat and nando and all the others hate so much. It was a
mix of theological and liberal views that established the principle in the
late nineteenth century that all should be considered equal before the law.
And it was scientific research based on Darwinian principles in
anthropology that established that the concept of "race" has no application
to human variants.

Those who adhere to "race" as a concept tend to like it because it suits
some political or economic agenda. Reverse discrimination is as racist as
the alternative, because if there is no such thing as the "negro" race
(Cavalli-Sforza and various others have shown that sub-Saharan African
populations are more diverse than the rest of the world combined) then
there can be no reparation. If native Americans or native Australians are
ethnically diverse, then this would interfere with political moves to gain
reparation (they think - I don't).

|
|>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
|>
|-- 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!
|

--
John Wilkins
<http://www.users.bigpond.com/thewilkins/darwiniana.html>
Homo homini aut deus aut lupus - Erasmus of Rotterdam


Landis D. Ragon

unread,
Apr 10, 2000, 3:00:00 AM4/10/00
to
Mitchell Coffey <cof...@my-deja.com> wrote:

>In article <8cotnq$vtm$1...@nnrp1.deja.com>,


> American Patriot <ttra...@my-deja.com> wrote:
>> 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...

>> > > 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, ...
>[snip]
>
>>
>> Instead of O of S, which is truly racist.
>[snip]
>
>
>The quote you are using is not from the "Origin of the Species".

Is it just me, or does anyone else visualize a flag waving in the
background whenever AP posts? Of course, the flag has this funny
looking black spider on it.


--
Landis Ragon (dS = dq/T)
Chief Elf in the Toy Factory.
"I've got a little list--I've got a little list
Of society offenders who might well be underground,
And who never would be missed--who never would be missed!"
-- Gilbert and Sullivan : "The Mikado"


Mapi32

unread,
Apr 10, 2000, 3:00:00 AM4/10/00
to
You are quite wrong...Luther hated Talmudist/Orthodox religion, NOT the
Jewish race.

~Matthias


<wf...@ptd.net> wrote in message news:38f2642f...@news.ptd.net...


> On 10 Apr 2000 07:56:02 -0400, American Patriot <ttra...@my-deja.com>
> wrote:
> >

> >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?
>

Matt Silberstein

unread,
Apr 10, 2000, 3:00:00 AM4/10/00
to
In talk.origins I read
<CTMH4.110058$Tn4.7...@news1.rdc2.pa.home.com> from "Mapi32"
<mapno...@home.com>:

[note: order changed to usenet standard]
[note: boikat wrote the following]

|> 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.

|That wasn't a very good answer, in my opinion.

Let me fill in the gaps in the argument. Terry argued that there is
something objectionable about the theory of evolution because some
comment by Darwin seems racist. If that logic is correct, then there
is something way more objectionable about Christianity, which Terry
professes, due to the way more racist comments and actions by the KKK.

This simply points out one the failings with Terry's argument. There
were more. Darwin was not, for his time racist. The comment was not
all that racist. The theory does not depend on any racism. Whether or
not Darwin was racist or whether or not he made racist comments in his
book has no bearing on whether evolution happens or on whether the
theory of evolution explains the process. There are more errors in
Terry's comment, would you like to point them out or shall I?

---
Matt Silberstein

Unhappy the country that needs heros.

B. Brecht


Matt Silberstein

unread,
Apr 10, 2000, 3:00:00 AM4/10/00
to
In talk.origins I read <8cs507$1fu$1...@nntp.Stanford.EDU> from
jona...@DSG.Stanford.EDU (Jonathan Stone):

[snip]

|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).

It would be nice if his quotes had relevance as well, but we can't
have everything.

wf...@ptd.net

unread,
Apr 10, 2000, 3:00:00 AM4/10/00
to
On 10 Apr 2000 21:15:24 -0400, "Mapi32" <mapno...@home.com> wrote:

>You are quite wrong...Luther hated Talmudist/Orthodox religion, NOT the
>Jewish race.

you're welcome to prove this distortion of history. for those who wish
to decide for themselves, luther's hatred of judaism can be read, in a
translation of his own words at:

http://home.flash.net/~twinkle/psycho/DARK/recreational/luther.html

he makes no distinction between orthodoxy and other forms of judaism.
in addition, such splits in judaism did not exist at the time of
luther.

so go ahead...what else you gonna make up?


Johnny Bravo

unread,
Apr 10, 2000, 3:00:00 AM4/10/00
to
On 10 Apr 2000 19:41:55 -0400, John Wilkins <wil...@wehi.edu.au>
wrote:

>Consider the views of those who stressed "good blood" and "good breeding"

The artificial environment introduced by humans required a whole new
set of traits for domesticated animals. Our idea of "most fit" had
little to do with more offspring in most cases. We bred for bigger
animals with leaner meat for eating, horses that ran fast for short
periods, ect. These animals would be wolf chow in no time if released
into the wild. In some cases we bred for more offspring than could be
supported in the wild, we have bred chickens that lay one or more eggs
in a day rather than one egg a week or even less. "Good Breeding"
implied most fit for civilized human society, rather than most fit in
wild or "uncivilized" settings. It is natural human vanity for those
lucky enough to be born into wealthy families, especially those with
titles, so see themselves as the "best" of humanity.

>But I think that apart from the fact that neither evolution nor
>Christianity caused racism but have always been drawn into service of it,

People have little trouble incorporating all their beliefs into one
world view. I have little doubt a racist flat-earther would say that
since "white" races came from the center of the world, they are
superior. <grin>

>the interesting thing is that the motivation for racism is always, IMO,
>economic and political.

People who have are easily resented by those who have not. It is
even easier to hate those who are obviously different than you. From
what I've seen, a great many racist attitudes are learned from
parents. People might not even be aware of it, just learned from
parents that this was the way to look at the world.

--
Best Wishes,
Johnny Bravo

BAAWA Knight, EAC - Temporal Adjustments Division

"The most merciful thing in the world, I think, is the inability
of the human mind to correlate all it's contents." - HPL


Johnny Bravo

unread,
Apr 10, 2000, 3:00:00 AM4/10/00
to
On 9 Apr 2000 15:34:11 -0400, "tweedyd" <twe...@cvn.net> wrote:

>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".

Not in the commonly used sense of better, yet there are features of
different races that better suit them to different environments. The
main one I know of is skin color, darker races have protection from
sunburn, lighter races are better able to produce vitamin D in poor
light, eye folds offer slight protection from glare in frozen climes,
and as evolution shows, it only takes a very small advantage to
dominate a population in an environment.
For those specific functions, one race can be better than another.
But to make a general comparison would be as pointless as comparing a
finch that eats mostly hard seeds to one that eats mostly soft ones.

>> 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.

I think his key word was "idiot", many idiot bigots call themselves
Christians instead of Evolutionists. While they feel it might support
them, it doesn't mean that Christianity is to blame, any more than
Evolution is. Bigots come in all shapes, sizes and other beliefs. :)

Mapi32

unread,
Apr 11, 2000, 3:00:00 AM4/11/00
to
Thank you for this link!! It is appriciated, as it has saved me from
digging through my book collection.

Now then, I say that you took Luther out of context, in the same way AmPat
took Darwin out of context....you haven't read The Jews And Their Lies, have
you?

The entire book is directed against Talmudic Jews, NOT racial Jews. Luther
refers to the Jews as poor people several times, and also is angered that
the rabbis mislead the Jews. He also hopes for the coversion of the Jews,
although he says it is rare. He also states that the true church is composed
partly of Jews. Here are several examples:

"Whenever a Jew is sincerely converted, he should be handed one hundred, two
hundred, or three hundred florins, as personal circumstances may suggest.
With this he could set himself up in some occupation for the support of his
poor wife and children, and the maintenance of the old or feeble. For such
evil gains are cursed if they are not put to use with God's blessing in a
good and worthy cause."

"They should not curse them or harm their persons, however. For the Jews
have cursed and harmed themselves more than enough by cursing the Man Jesus
of Nazareth, Mary's son, which they unfortunately have been doing for over
fourteen hundred years."

"The Christian church, composed of Jews and Gentiles, is such a new people
and a new Jerusalem."

"May Christ, our dear Lord, convert them mercifully and preserve us
steadfastly and immovably in the knowledge of him, which is eternal life.
Amen."

"Their accursed rabbis, who in deed know better, wantonly poison the minds
of their poor youth and of the common man and divert them from the truth.
For I believe that if these writings were read by the common man and the
youth they would stone all their rabbis and hate them more violently than
they do us Christians. But these villains prevent our sincere views from
coming to their attention. "

"Burgensis, who was one of their very learned rabbis, and who through the
grace of God became a Christian a very rare happening is much agitated by
the fact that they curse us Christians so vilely in their synagogues (as
Lyra also writes), and he deduces from this that they cannot be God's
people. For if they were, they would emulate the example of the Jews in the
Babylonian captivity. To them Jeremiah wrote, "Seek the welfare of the city
where I have sent you into exile, and pray to the Lord on its behalf, for in
its welfare you will find your welfare" [Jer. 29:7]. But our bastards and
pseudo-Jews think they must curse us, hate us, and inflict every possible
harm upon us, although they have no cause for it. Therefore they surely are
no longer God's people. But we shall say more about this later. "


-I expect a retraction or a rebuttle soon.

regards,
~Matthias

<wf...@ptd.net> wrote in message news:38f28eea...@news.ptd.net...

wf...@ptd.net

unread,
Apr 11, 2000, 3:00:00 AM4/11/00
to
On 11 Apr 2000 00:07:30 -0400, "Mapi32" <mapno...@home.com> wrote:

>Thank you for this link!! It is appriciated, as it has saved me from
>digging through my book collection.
>
>Now then, I say that you took Luther out of context, in the same way AmPat
>took Darwin out of context....you haven't read The Jews And Their Lies, have
>you?

yeah i have. in fact i posted the link for you to look at. so, yes, i
have read it


>
>The entire book is directed against Talmudic Jews, NOT racial Jews

whatever a 'talmudic jew is'. luther never mentions it. it's not a
division of judaism now...and it never was. it's simply something you
made up. so try again

.. Luther


>refers to the Jews as poor people several times, and also is angered that
>the rabbis mislead the Jews.

if you can cite an instance of that, i'd be much obliged. you're
wrong. simply wrong. again, for those who want to read what luther
ACTUALLY said, instead of this sanitized version, the link is:

http://home.flash.net/~twinkle/psycho/DARK/recreational/luther.html

since 'talmudic judaism' doesnt exist...and luther NEVER mentions it,
all the while claiming JEWS are evil...

you're simply ignoring the facts. .no surprise from a creationist.

He also hopes for the coversion of the Jews,
>although he says it is rare. He also states that the true church is composed
>partly of Jews. Here are several examples:
>
>"Whenever a Jew is sincerely converted,

yeah. he likes converted jews. that's the whole point of the book.
otherwise he wants 'em dead.

>
>"They should not curse them or harm their persons, however. For the Jews
>have cursed and harmed themselves more than enough by cursing the Man Jesus
>of Nazareth, Mary's son, which they unfortunately have been doing for over
>fourteen hundred years."

perhaps you forgot this:

>What shall we Christians do with this rejected and condemned people, the Jews?
> Since they live among us, we dare not tolerate their conduct, now that we are
> aware of their lying and reviling and blaspheming.

i dont see the words 'talmudic' or 'rabbi' anywhere there. in fact,
nowhere does luther ever mention such things. you yourself point out
the ONLY time luther mentions a 'good jew'...that is, a converted jew.

thanks, i already know that.


>
>"Their accursed rabbis, who in deed know better, wantonly poison the minds
>of their poor youth and of the common man and divert them from the truth.

yeah, damn rabbis...cant trust any of 'em

>
>
>-I expect a retraction or a rebuttle soon.
>
>regards,
>~Matthias

you're deluded...sincerely deluded.

here's the rebuttal:

go read the book.

here's the opening paragraphs:

>I had made up my mind to write no more either about the Jews or against them.
> But since I learned that those miserable and accursed people do not cease to
> lure to themselves even us, that is, the Christians, I have published this little
> book, so that I might be found among those who opposed such poisonous
> activities of the Jews and who warned the Christians to be on their guard against
> them. I would not have believed that a Christian could be duped by the Jews
> into taking their exile and wretchedness upon himself. However, the devil is the
> god of the world, and wherever God's word is absent he has an easy task, not
> only with the weak but also with the strong. Ma