AGS Steam Games

Forums → WEPR → Was Darwin a racist??????

67 14491
holt24
offline
holt24
1,133 posts
Nomad

Hey dudes I've heard before that darwin was a racist but decided to look into it a tad so I am going to show some stuff that says he's racist and someone else show some stuff to say he wasn't.

Heres something that says he's a racist.
Heres something that says he's not a racist.

Here's something that says hes not racist.

Heres something else that says he is.

So feel free to discuss it down below.

  • 67 Replies
samy
offline
samy
4,871 posts
Nomad

what he said regarding people of other racis.


Because of his incomplete knowledge of other races, and honestly, his own theory. Excuses can be made if you had no way of obtaining the knowledge necessary to say that all humans are equal, or at least equality isn't based upon race. Now we have genetics, problem solved.
holt24
offline
holt24
1,133 posts
Nomad

Because of his incomplete knowledge of other races, and honestly, his own theory. Excuses can be made if you had no way of obtaining the knowledge necessary to say that all humans are equal, or at least equality isn't based upon race. Now we have genetics, problem solved.


You are basicly calling him a racist without actually saying it.
samy
offline
samy
4,871 posts
Nomad

You are basicly calling him a racist without actually saying it.


He wasn't racist at all, his theory may have been but only because of his incomplete knowledge. Listen you can't debate if he was a racist or not just like you can't debate if he was a Christian, atheist, agnostic, wiccan, or anything else. The theory is the only thing that can be debated objectively.
holt24
offline
holt24
1,133 posts
Nomad

He wasn't racist at all, his theory may have been but only because of his incomplete knowledge. Listen you can't debate if he was a racist or not just like you can't debate if he was a Christian, atheist, agnostic, wiccan, or anything else. The theory is the only thing that can be debated objectively.


Well there seems to be alot of people who think you can debate it objectively just not on this website.
samy
offline
samy
4,871 posts
Nomad

Well there seems to be alot of people who think you can debate it objectively just not on this website.


Based upon his theory.
holt24
offline
holt24
1,133 posts
Nomad

Based upon his theory.


His theory would be apart of the debate on whether or not he was a racist. Okay I'm tired of the arguing back and forth include the theory into this.
Freakenstein
offline
Freakenstein
9,504 posts
Jester

Sure but they are biased for both sides.


So you admit that your links are shoddy "evidence".

You are basicly calling him a racist without actually saying it.


No he wasn't? Samy is explaining that his data was incomplete and faulty. The different races of humans are just like how a baboon is to a chimp; they are different. Saying that one is higher fit in X situations does NOT declare you a racist!
holt24
offline
holt24
1,133 posts
Nomad

So you admit that your links are shoddy "evidence".


No they are evedince for both sides.

The different races of humans are just like how a baboon is to a chimp; they are different. Saying that one is higher fit in X situations does NOT declare you a racist!


How does that not make you a racist? That doesn't make equality that makes inequality.

I'v got to go so I will have to pick up the remains of this thread tomorrow.
samy
offline
samy
4,871 posts
Nomad

It may be doubted whether any character can be named which is distinctive of a race and is constant.


It is impossible to see a negro and not feel kindly towards him.


-Charles Darwin
Freakenstein
offline
Freakenstein
9,504 posts
Jester

No they are evedince for both sides.


You mean testimonies from both sides which is just speculation. They don't prove a thing.

How does that not make you a racist? That doesn't make equality that makes inequality.


Because biologically, we are different! There is no escaping that! Black people have a higher melanin content than Caucasians! Because I just said that, I must be a racist, no? I mean, it's not an equal discussion is it?

Racism: extreme dislike or hatred for a race, ethnicity, or nationality.

Survival of the Fittest: inspired by the principle of natural selection, postulating that those who are eliminated in the struggle for existence are the unfit.

If you cannot distinguish between the two definitions and argue that Darwin is racist because of the opposite implication, then you are UNFIT for discussing in your own thread.
MageGrayWolf
offline
MageGrayWolf
9,462 posts
Farmer

What does it matter weather Darwin was racist or not? It has not impact on his legacy.

samy
offline
samy
4,871 posts
Nomad

What does it matter weather Darwin was racist or not? It has not impact on his legacy.



Weather?

He was a biologist not a meteorologist

http://fc06.deviantart.net/fs8/i/2005/311/5/8/Grammar_Natzee_by_dinyctis.jpg

This relates because eugenics was used by the Nazi party as an excuse for genocide.
Moegreche
offline
Moegreche
3,826 posts
Duke

I would first like to point out that Darwin lived during the 19th century. So trying to classify him using a term with modern connotations is, to me, a fallacy of equivocation.
The simple and sad truth is that most people during that time had very little regard for people of color. Any color. Much of it had to with the fact that these people were considered barbaric. And, in a sense, they were. They were uncivilized, illiterate, and deemed intellectually inferior.

But even if Darwin could be classified as a racist under modern standards - who the hell cares? What bearing does this have on his work as a biologist?
I've heard all sorts of silliness about Darwin. That he recanted his notion of natural selection while on his deathbed. That he regularly said he never believed what he wrote. All of these ideas are just plain false. In fact, you can trace the root of these lies back to the fundamentalist Christian pastors who started them.

But, as I said, even if Darwin was a racist. Even if he was a serial murderer. It doesn't matter. His ideas were revolutionary and amazingly accurate. The type of person he was doesn't affect this at all.

MageGrayWolf
offline
MageGrayWolf
9,462 posts
Farmer

Weather?


*whether, happy? Now moving on from my horrible grammar...

This relates because eugenics was used by the Nazi party as an excuse for genocide.


Darwins theory wasn't eugenics, so I still don't see how it matters.
samy
offline
samy
4,871 posts
Nomad

Darwins theory wasn't eugenics, so I still don't see how it matters.


Being a centrist I find it nice to find some truth in bad arguments. In throwing in eugenics maybe I'm bolstering Holt's argument, then again he's made it clear that we're only debating the man.
Showing 31-45 of 67