Was Darwin a bigot?

[Young Buck]

We already have seen that Foard is content to continue to quote out-of-context (see the "eye" post, which fills in much material that Foard somehow "missed"), so let's see what the truth is about Darwin's "racism" (this is from a post I wrote a long time ago, edited here to remove the specific individuals I was addressing). Amendments and additional comments will be in square brackets:

There is an important issue here, and that is one of context. [Someone else] clearly pointed out that it is specious and misleading to evaluate the social attitudes of people who lived over 150 years ago by modern standards, because you cannot rip an individual's views on social phenomena out of the context that spawns them without rendering those views meaningless.

So the question is not "*Is* Darwin a racist" (which is basically [Foard's] attitude, as he obviously chooses to judge him by current standards), but *was* he, given the tenor of the times?

All passages from Desmond & Moore's biography.

[...]

Darwin really faced human injustice for the first time on his Beagle voyage, (1831-36) when he was in South America.

"It was a sore point, the travails of the black man, and potentially divisive aboard ship, with Fitzroy [Captain of the Beagle] justifying the Negroes' lot. One day he remarked that slavery was not intolerable, for Brazilians in general treat their black servants well. Fitzroy was widely travelled and Darwin was not, but in his Whig heart Darwin knew wrong from right. Slavery was the one institution his whole family inveighed against. It was evil, and Darwin suggested that the only solution was emancipation. Fitzroy boiled over…Fitzroy had heard a slave owner ask his servants whether they were unhappy or wished to be free. 'No', they had replied-so shouldn't their wishes be respected? Darwin asked what a slave's answer in his master's presence was worth. At this Fitzroy exploded, declaring that they could not live together any longer; his word had been questioned. And then he stalked out of the cabin."

[So we know that Darwin's family were staunch Abolitionists long before "Origin" was written or Darwin even entertained the idea of evolution.]

On an estate inland from Rio, Darwin observed this: "On arriving at the estate, he saw another 'horrible & flagrant' example of 'miserably overworked' blacks. The owner, his travelling companion, quarrelled with the foreman running the ranch, and threatened to sell the man's favourite mulatto child at a public auction. The dispute escalated, and the owner angrily rounded up all the women and children from thirty slave families, intent on selling them separately from their husbands in Rio. This was despicable. How could a man otherwise so congenial reach such depths of degradation? 'How weak are the arguments of those who maintain that slavery is a tolerable evil!'"

He further observed of Brazilian slaveowners: "The men were 'ignorant, cowardly, & indolent in the extreme', and the 'older women' full of 'cunning, sensuality, & pride.' The 'monks' were as bad or worse. All degraded themselves by brutalizing the blacks, whom Darwin admired for their courage. He foresaw the day when the slaves would 'assert their own rights & forget to avenge their wrongs'."

[Interesting observation, that last one--Darwin clearly places moral superiority on the blacks.]

Later on and farther south, Darwin encounters gauchos, and their "war" against the natives. When he complained about the genocide, he observed: "'Who would believe in this age in a Christian, civilized country that such atrocities were committed?' The butchery might benefit the economy, but it would corrupt the people. 'The country will be in the hands of the white gaucho savages instead of copper-coloured Indians. The former being a little superior in civilization, as they are inferior in every moral virtue.'"

Later on, after "Origin" was published, we learn:

"Lyell's _Antiquity_ and Spenser's _Social Statics_ had spurred Wallace to speak out on human evolution. That month Darwin pored over Wallace's first paper, delivered to the unpleasantly ultra-racist, pro-slavery Anthropological Society.

The Society itself was an abomination, and the American Civil War only heightened Darwin's detestation. Despite Gray's dispathches on the 'dreadful carnage' during the Battle of the Wilderness, he remained adamant 'that the destruction of Slavery would be well worth a dozen years war.' There was no scientific justification for slavery, and the entire rival Ethnological Society agreed."

Was Darwin a racist? In the context of his own times, which is the only way we can fairly judge him, decidedly not. He was sickened by the brutality of the treatment of blacks. [He was a long-time opponent of slavery. If he were dumped in 21st century North America with all his Victorian values, education, and worldview intact, he would certainly be regarded as an anachronism at best. But of course, that is a specious argument; if Darwin were alive today he would be a man of today, and given his progressive views during his own time it is exceedingly unlikely he would harbour any "racist" views.]

To be sure, Darwin was mightily puzzled by the huge gap he saw between some of the natives and the high state of civilization of the English gentry. He did feel that European civilization was the pinnacle of achievement, and that it was likely that it would wipe out some of the "primitive" peoples (and was he wrong?). But he believed in the improvability of humans, as did many enlightened thinkers of his time. Humans were not "stuck" in savagery, but could rise out of it. We might object to his use of the term "savage", but there are people today who believe that humans are genetically determined to a certain lot in life and cannot rise above it, so to speak.

[It is unfortunate that Foard has chosen to try and distort the truth about Darwin. The time frame of the publication of "Origin" is irrelevant and is clearly only being used to try and justify an insupportable position. The truth about Darwin is clear from the context of his time and from his own words. He deplored the racist attitudes of his era and he abhorred slavery.]

[Young Buck]

P.S. This is from the UTK Anthropology department, which I shall return next year

[Brazuca]

We already have seen that Foard is content to continue to quote out-of-context (see the "eye" post, which fills in much material that Foard somehow "missed"), so let's see what the truth is about Darwin's "racism" (this is from a post I wrote a long time ago, edited here to remove the specific individuals I was addressing). Amendments and additional comments will be in square brackets:

There is an important issue here, and that is one of context. [Someone else] clearly pointed out that it is specious and misleading to evaluate the social attitudes of people who lived over 150 years ago by modern standards, because you cannot rip an individual's views on social phenomena out of the context that spawns them without rendering those views meaningless.

So the question is not "*Is* Darwin a racist" (which is basically [Foard's] attitude, as he obviously chooses to judge him by current standards), but *was* he, given the tenor of the times?

All passages from Desmond & Moore's biography.

[...]

Darwin really faced human injustice for the first time on his Beagle voyage, (1831-36) when he was in South America.

"It was a sore point, the travails of the black man, and potentially divisive aboard ship, with Fitzroy [Captain of the Beagle] justifying the Negroes' lot. One day he remarked that slavery was not intolerable, for Brazilians in general treat their black servants well. Fitzroy was widely travelled and Darwin was not, but in his Whig heart Darwin knew wrong from right. Slavery was the one institution his whole family inveighed against. It was evil, and Darwin suggested that the only solution was emancipation. Fitzroy boiled over…Fitzroy had heard a slave owner ask his servants whether they were unhappy or wished to be free. 'No', they had replied-so shouldn't their wishes be respected? Darwin asked what a slave's answer in his master's presence was worth. At this Fitzroy exploded, declaring that they could not live together any longer; his word had been questioned. And then he stalked out of the cabin."

[So we know that Darwin's family were staunch Abolitionists long before "Origin" was written or Darwin even entertained the idea of evolution.]

On an estate inland from Rio, Darwin observed this: "On arriving at the estate, he saw another 'horrible & flagrant' example of 'miserably overworked' blacks. The owner, his travelling companion, quarrelled with the foreman running the ranch, and threatened to sell the man's favourite mulatto child at a public auction. The dispute escalated, and the owner angrily rounded up all the women and children from thirty slave families, intent on selling them separately from their husbands in Rio. This was despicable. How could a man otherwise so congenial reach such depths of degradation? 'How weak are the arguments of those who maintain that slavery is a tolerable evil!'"

He further observed of Brazilian slaveowners: "The men were 'ignorant, cowardly, & indolent in the extreme', and the 'older women' full of 'cunning, sensuality, & pride.' The 'monks' were as bad or worse. All degraded themselves by brutalizing the blacks, whom Darwin admired for their courage. He foresaw the day when the slaves would 'assert their own rights & forget to avenge their wrongs'."

[Interesting observation, that last one--Darwin clearly places moral superiority on the blacks.]

Later on and farther south, Darwin encounters gauchos, and their "war" against the natives. When he complained about the genocide, he observed: "'Who would believe in this age in a Christian, civilized country that such atrocities were committed?' The butchery might benefit the economy, but it would corrupt the people. 'The country will be in the hands of the white gaucho savages instead of copper-coloured Indians. The former being a little superior in civilization, as they are inferior in every moral virtue.'"

Later on, after "Origin" was published, we learn:

"Lyell's _Antiquity_ and Spenser's _Social Statics_ had spurred Wallace to speak out on human evolution. That month Darwin pored over Wallace's first paper, delivered to the unpleasantly ultra-racist, pro-slavery Anthropological Society.

The Society itself was an abomination, and the American Civil War only heightened Darwin's detestation. Despite Gray's dispathches on the 'dreadful carnage' during the Battle of the Wilderness, he remained adamant 'that the destruction of Slavery would be well worth a dozen years war.' There was no scientific justification for slavery, and the entire rival Ethnological Society agreed."

Was Darwin a racist? In the context of his own times, which is the only way we can fairly judge him, decidedly not. He was sickened by the brutality of the treatment of blacks. [He was a long-time opponent of slavery. If he were dumped in 21st century North America with all his Victorian values, education, and worldview intact, he would certainly be regarded as an anachronism at best. But of course, that is a specious argument; if Darwin were alive today he would be a man of today, and given his progressive views during his own time it is exceedingly unlikely he would harbour any "racist" views.]

To be sure, Darwin was mightily puzzled by the huge gap he saw between some of the natives and the high state of civilization of the English gentry. He did feel that European civilization was the pinnacle of achievement, and that it was likely that it would wipe out some of the "primitive" peoples (and was he wrong?). But he believed in the improvability of humans, as did many enlightened thinkers of his time. Humans were not "stuck" in savagery, but could rise out of it. We might object to his use of the term "savage", but there are people today who believe that humans are genetically determined to a certain lot in life and cannot rise above it, so to speak.

[It is unfortunate that Foard has chosen to try and distort the truth about Darwin. The time frame of the publication of "Origin" is irrelevant and is clearly only being used to try and justify an insupportable position. The truth about Darwin is clear from the context of his time and from his own words. He deplored the racist attitudes of his era and he abhorred slavery.]

I'm confused ... was it actually you who wrote this, Hugo? :?

[Young Buck]

did you not look at my second post in this thread brazuca?

[Brazuca]

Your second post is not too clear, either. Evidently clarity is not your strong point.

[Young Buck]

your not American so you wouldnt understand our abreviations for universities..UTK=University of Tennessee Knoxville, this was from thier anthro board, I will return to that university next year.

[Brazuca]

Don't worry. Regardless, the point is still that you weren't clear. I now guess you meant to say that you got this from some uni board and it isn't what you actually wrote -- 'cos I was wondering what "you" were referring to in that post at first.