Ping!
Hitler was a fan of Darwin....
The dude was a genius, way ahead of his times.
Not really. Although it does depend on how you classify "race".
The Spartans certainly classed the Helots as a separate race although we would not.
The Gibeonites were considered a separate race from the Jews and while they were not exactly slaves they were "hewers of wood and drawers of water" i.e. forced service.
In the next to last paragraph of the selection he says "..... who from a weak constitution would formerly have succumbed to small-pox" ~ yet, today, we modern, civilized people know that being killed by smallpox has more to do with the virulence of the virus than from a "weak constitution".
Holding the victims of small-pox responsible for their own deaths is rather barbaric. Discussing characteristics of the different "brands" of human being was not then considered terribly "racist", if "racist" at all. We just discuss such things different these days ~ e.g. not in the presence of the subjects being discussed, and certainly not in public if the topic has been declared taboo by PC arbiters ~ even if failure to discuss results in the deaths of millions.
Chuck Darwin: a legitimate candidate for All-Time Loser.
The original Archie Bunker.
I get mad every time I read about this because the kids are always taught Darwin on Pot instead of Darwin on Speed. If they’re going to teach them this crap they really ought to teach where Chuckie was coming from.
Thanks for posting... the truth is out there. Way out there...
Darwin was contracting his own work with those racist remarks. He is still one of the most important and influential natural historians of all time despite this stupidity.
‘The Preservation of Favoured Races in the Struggle for Life’
“At some future period, not very distant as measured by centuries, the civilised races of man will almost certainly exterminate, and replace, the savage races throughout the world. At the same time the anthropomorphous apes, as Professor Schaaffhausen has remarked will no doubt be exterminated. The break between man and his nearest allies will then be wider, for it will intervene between man in a more civilised state, as we may hope, even than the Caucasian, and some ape as low as a baboon, instead of as now between the negro or Australian and the gorilla.”
...but excepting in the case of man himself, hardly any one is so ignorant as to allow his worst animals to breed...
"Allow"?
The funny thing about naturalists, is that on one hand they think they know best how to make things right...and on the other hand, they reject the concept of right and wrong...I suppose whichever is convenient to their ego at the time (I speak from experience, I used to be trapped in that shallow, foolish, and disproved philosophy).
This argument reminds me of the attempts to delegitimize the Founding Fathes because some of them owned slaves. Is “all men are created equal” less true because they didn’t mean slaves and women—because the person who wrote that line couldn’t entirely shed the attitudes of his day?