1979 H&R edition of Darwin shows racism subtitle

[Interplanner]

The racism inherent in Darwinism, probably pushed by T. Huxley, is found on title page copies as late as this 1979 Harper and Row edition.

http://proofthebibleistrue.com/explosive-geological-evidence-for-creation-mt-st-helens-2/

15th minute


The racism that developed around Europe is not a connection to Darwin and Huxley that Christians have to come along later and labor to demonstrate. It was there all the time. It was there from the beginning in Germany's "Darwin," E. Haeckl.

Since the major educational--media--entertainment complex would be horrified that racism was that clearly connected, subsequent title pages have conveniently removed this from the title page.

 

[chair]

from the wikipedia:
On the Origin of Species, with the title page adding by Means of Natural Selection, or the Preservation of Favoured Races in the Struggle for Life.[2] Here the term "races" is used as an alternative for "varieties" and does not carry the modern connotation of human races—the first use in the book refers to "the several races, for instance, of the cabbage" and proceeds to a discussion of "the hereditary varieties or races of our domestic animals and plants".[60]

 

[Danoh]

from the wikipedia:
On the Origin of Species, with the title page adding by Means of Natural Selection, or the Preservation of Favoured Races in the Struggle for Life.[2] Here the term "races" is used as an alternative for "varieties" and does not carry the modern connotation of human races—the first use in the book refers to "the several races, for instance, of the cabbage" and proceeds to a discussion of "the hereditary varieties or races of our domestic animals and plants".[60]

Just as what Darwin had actually meant by the phrase "survival of the fittest" is also largely misunderstood by those who's every thought on a thing is based on the corrosion on their ability to think through a think soundly that their over-reliance on books "about" this, and that, has resulted in.

The fools, if it is not in a book somewhere, they neither know how to think it through, nor how to, when they encounter it in another's assertion.

Academia for you - endless "books about," together with equally endless "scholars," and their endless parrots parroting more of the same in the next long line of "books about."

Without their endless books to point to, some here have no debate.

In this, there is no reasoning with such: none.

There's no book to show them, and they of course know all "about" how that "well, this, that, other book in the Bible was compiled from" blah, blah, blah...

 

[Interplanner]

from the wikipedia:
On the Origin of Species, with the title page adding by Means of Natural Selection, or the Preservation of Favoured Races in the Struggle for Life.[2] Here the term "races" is used as an alternative for "varieties" and does not carry the modern connotation of human races—the first use in the book refers to "the several races, for instance, of the cabbage" and proceeds to a discussion of "the hereditary varieties or races of our domestic animals and plants".[60]

When liberalism is embarrassed about something, it writes a wikipedia entry to gloss it. What this entry doesn't understand is that there is no distinction between humans and cabbage in the uniformitarian view. Plenty of significant people took off from that to make it do what they wanted in the world of race as we now know it.

To put it another way, Germany didn't see itself as racist, but as natural. German monism was the view that it was the only race that was a pure form of nature. Reality was one--nature--and the non-Aryans were "un-natural," meaning, unbiological. They had survived in spite of the will of nature. This was one of the sources of anti-semitism, because God, man and nature were all distinct in Genesis. Not so in German monism.

And besides, how can anyone miss the use of the word 'struggle' as such.

 

[aikido7]

Most people are racists. And they were in Darwin's day as well--including Charles himself.

 

[patrick jane]

Most people are racists. And they were in Darwin's day as well--including Charles himself.

even worse back then

 

[aikido7]

even worse back then

I agree. I don't think the word was even in existence back then.

 

[6days]

Most people are racists. And they were in Darwin's day as well--including Charles himself.

Stephen J. Gould "Biological arguments for racism may have been common before 1850, but they increased by orders of magnitude following the acceptance of evolutionary theory."

 

[chair]

The point is that when Darwin used the term "races" he was not referring to human races in the modern sense. Presenting his subtitle as being "racist" is intellectually dishonest at best, and outright lying at worse.

 

[6days]

The point is that when Darwin used the term "races" he was not referring to human races in the modern sense. Presenting his subtitle as being "racist" is intellectually dishonest at best, and outright lying at worse.

If you think Darwin wasn't racist, you are mistaken. He increasingly became more racist as he later applied the term 'races' to humans. He thought white people like himself were superior to blacks and pygmies. He also thought that having a wife was better than having a dog. Didn't Darwin think women were not as highly evolved and not as intelligent as men?

 

[chair]

If you think Darwin wasn't racist, you are mistaken. He increasingly became more racist as he later applied the term 'races' to humans. He thought white people like himself were superior to blacks and pygmies. He also thought that having a wife was better than having a dog. Didn't Darwin think women were not as highly evolved and not as intelligent as men?

I did not say that Darwin wasn't a racist. Don't put words into my mouth. I said that presenting the subtitle of his book as a proof of him being a racist is incorrect.

 

[aikido7]

Stephen J. Gould "Biological arguments for racism may have been common before 1850, but they increased by orders of magnitude following the acceptance of evolutionary theory."

Interesting. It's amazing to me how many scientists and researchers study things that hardly ever occur to the rest of us.

 

[aikido7]

I did not say that Darwin wasn't a racist. Don't put words into my mouth. I said that presenting the subtitle of his book as a proof of him being a racist is incorrect.

Where in the heck did I say "You said that Darwin wasn't a racist"?

You are making your post all about you and your own feelings. I certainly cannot make ANYONE feel ANYTHING. We only make ourselves feel a certain way when something happens to us.

 

[chair]

Where in the heck did I say "You said that Darwin wasn't a racist"?

You are making your post all about you and your own feelings. I certainly cannot make ANYONE feel ANYTHING. We only make ourselves feel a certain way when something happens to us.

It wasn't directed at you.

6days said "If you think Darwin wasn't racist, you are mistaken."

 

[Desert Reign]

Most people are racists. And they were in Darwin's day as well--including Charles himself.

Racism is not wrong. It is a necessary part of thought. It is the acknowledgement and recognition of differences between types of things. The very reason why we classify things into types is exactly to order them according to their differences and similarities.

Where it goes wrong is to think of one type as morally superior to another. Discrimination is vital for survival but unfair discrimination arises when race is used as a pretext for superiority and inferiority. Better, worse, weaker, stronger, etc., these terms have always been subjective terms. It goes wrong when you treat them as objective ones.

 

[6days]

I said that presenting the subtitle of his book as a proof of him being a racist is incorrect.

Agreed If the original title of the book was all you had to go on, it would not be proof.

 

[chair]

Agreed If the original title of the book was all you had to go on, it would not be proof.

The most important thing to realize is it doesn't make any difference whether Darwin was a racist, or a Muslim, or a cannibal or whatever.

What kind of person he was is irrelevant to how useful his ideas are today.

Thsi is not a good approach to take if you are trying to attack the theory of evolution.

 

[aikido7]

Racism is not wrong. It is a necessary part of thought. It is the acknowledgement and recognition of differences between types of things. The very reason why we classify things into types is exactly to order them according to their differences and similarities.

Where it goes wrong is to think of one type as morally superior to another. Discrimination is vital for survival but unfair discrimination arises when race is used as a pretext for superiority and inferiority. Better, worse, weaker, stronger, etc., these terms have always been subjective terms. It goes wrong when you treat them as objective ones.

All I can say is my awareness that I have ugly racism in my heart. And I am not proud of it.

And I am all-too-aware of the consequences of my bigotry. That is the log or timber in my own eye.

 

[Jose Fly]

So I have to ask yet again....what is the point here? Are we supposed to evaluate ideas based on the racial views of their adherents? If so, what does that mean for all the racism that's been justified in the name of Christianity?

 

[The Horn]

There is absolutely nothing intrinsically racist about Darwin's theory of evolution . And while Darwin did have SOME racist views, or views which would be considered racist today , is absolutely no reason to reject evolution .
He was however, utterly opposed to slavery and was appalled by the treatment of slaves he observed in South America .
But unfortunately, too many creationists DO claim that Darwin was a racist and dishonestly use this as an excuse to reject evolution , which is absolutely idiotic .
Wagner was a an Anti-Semite , but this is no reason to hate his music, which is some of the greatest ever written .