Originally posted by Gup20:
I saw the movie. 
Oh.
So you're commenting on a book you've never read. Ok, but there's not much credibility in that.
Sure - read Darwin's "Decent of Man".
I have, as I've said, read some of it and what I have read does not support your contention, so could you please be more specific and supply the actual passage? For your convenience, I've supplied the online text so you can surely find what you are referring to. If you can't, I see no reason to acccept it as fact when a lot of the other stuff you've quoted is misleading at best.
As eloquently argued by Durant, both racism and sexism were central to evolution:
‘Darwin introduced his discussion of psychology in the Descent by reasserting his commitment to the principle of continuity … [and] … Darwin rested his case upon a judicious blend of zoomorphic and anthropomorphic arguments. Savages, who were said to possess smaller brains and more prehensile limbs than the higher races, and whose lives were said to be dominated more by instinct and less by reason … were placed in an intermediate position between nature and man; and Darwin extended this placement by analogy to include not only children and congenital idiots but also women, some of whose powers of intuition, of rapid perception, and perhaps of imitation were “characteristic of the lower races, and therefore of a past and lower state of civilization”’ (Descent 1871:326–327).
This is a different text altogether. Since I only have the
online text (<-linkie), which doesn't have page numbers, could you tell me what chapter Durant is citing? The only reference to "characteristic of the lower races" that I could find was attributed to Professor Schaaffhausen and I could not find the phrase " and therefore of a past and lower state of civilization” at all.
Darwin’s theory may have reflected his personal attitudes toward women and non-Caucasian races.
Or may not have - but you haven't given me his actual words concerning women and the citation you gave towards "the lower races" is vague and incomplete. You'll have to do better than this.
When Darwin was concerned that his son Erasmus might marry a young lady named Martineau, he wrote that if Erasmus married her he would not be:
‘… much better than her “nigger.”—Imagine poor Erasmus a nigger to so philosophical and energetic a lady … . Martineau had just returned from … America, and was full of married women’s property rights … . Perfect equality of rights is part of her doctrine … . We must pray for our poor “nigger” … Martineau didn’t become a Darwin.’
What is interesting is first that your source changes brother for son and second changes the meaning of a humorous criticism into a vile slur by selectively quoting even within the paragraph he uses. Compare what you've quoted with the complete passage from the book (thanks Amazon.com for allowing searches within the book):
'Eras was smitten, but Charles wondered about such a threatingingly assertive lady. 'Our only protection from so admirable a
sister-in-law is in her working [Eras][sic] too hard. He begins to perceive ... he shall not be much better than her "nigger". - Imagine poor Erasmus a nigger to so philosophical & energetic a lady...She already takes him to task about his idleness...She is going some day to explain to him her notions about marriage - Perfect equality of rights is part of her doctrine. I much doubt whether it will be equality in practice. We must pray for our poor "nigger".'
That was the word used in that era and was not considered to be offensive at that time. Can you tell me who were most often enslaved at that time?
It is painfully obvious that it was his brother and not his son that Darwin and the authors of
Darwin were referring to: "...In London [Charles Darwin] did have Eras for company. Or at least some of the time, for his brother was taken with that literary lioness Harriet Martineau. ...It might have been a meeting of minds, but neither expected much more. With her ear trumpet and his cleft palate, it was a surprise anything transpired, but they transcended their impediments and made perfect contact. She heard every word without her trumpet, and gratifying words they were: he praised her poor-law tales as the very epitiome of his views."
Why did your source lie?
Among the more telling indications of Darwin’s attitudes toward women were the statements he penned as a young man, which listed what he saw as the advantages of marriage, including children and a
‘… constant companion, (friend in old age) who will feel interested in one, object to be beloved and played with—better than a dog anyhow—Home, and someone to take care of house—Charms of music and female chit-chat. These things good for one’s health (emphasis mine).’
What is misogynistic about wanting a friend and a companion? I think it's nice.
The major intellectual justification Darwin offered for his conclusions about female inferiority was found in The Descent of Man. In this work, Darwin argued that the ‘adult female’ in most species resembled the young of both sexes, ...
Except that isn't what he wrote, which was: "I was first led to infer that a relation of this kind exists, from the fact that whenever and in whatever manner the adult male differs from the adult female, he differs in the same manner from the young of both sexes. The generality of this fact is quite remarkable: it holds good with almost all mammals, birds, amphibians, and fishes; also with many crustaceans, spiders, and some few insects, such as certain Orthoptera and Libellulae. In all these cases the variations, through the accumulation of which the male acquired his proper masculine characters, must have occurred at a somewhat late period of life; otherwise the young males would have been similarly characterised; and conformably with our rule, the variations are transmitted to and developed in the adult males alone. When, on the other hand, the adult male closely resembles the young of both sexes (these, with rare exceptions, being alike), he generally resembles the adult female; and in most of these cases the variations through which the young and old acquired their present characters, probably occurred, according to our rule, during youth. But there is here room for doubt, for characters are sometimes transferred to the offspring at an earlier age than that at which they first appeared in the parents, so that the parents may have varied when adult, and have transferred their characters to their offspring whilst young."
That the trouble with quote-mining - it is too often used to distort the actual meaning of the original text.
...and also that ‘males are more evolutionarily advanced than females.’ Since female evolution progressed slower then male evolution, a woman was ‘in essence, a stunted man.’ This view of women rapidly spread to Darwin’s scientific and academic contemporaries.
Neither of those phrases seem to occur in Darwin's
Descent of Man. Perhaps your source is, um, mistaken again.
Darwin taught that the differences between men and women were due partly, or even largely, to sexual selection.
Well, yeah, sexual reproduction is how genes are passed from one generation to the next and those who are not selected, don't get their genes passed. This is still a basic tenet of evolutionary theory.
To support this conclusion, Darwin used the example ...
See, Darwin supports his conclusions with examples! Nice.
Um, you attribute modern advertising to Darwin?
"A male must prove himself physically and intellectually superior to other males in the competition for females to pass his genes on, whereas a woman must only be superior in sexual attraction."
[/qb]Are those Darwin's actual words or your source's? How do you account for who is selected by whom and who is not selected for sexual reproduction?
That seems the definition of sexism today. Women are objectified sexually (pornagraphy, swim suit competitions, beauty pagents) and men must prove themselves physically (sports) and intellectually (business). How often do we see the cliche of a really ugly guy with a really great looking woman and think "he must be rich".
Why blame Darwin for human nature? You haven't shown that Darwin judged a person's intrinsic worth by his or her sexual attractiveness, only that sexual attractiveness is a factor in sexual selection for reproduction - do you really think it is not?
Indeed... and I am not claiming that Darwin is the cause of Racism. However, I think that evoution was the primary catalyst to the kind of racism we have today. It certainly served to magnify racism a great deal.
How is the racism today different from that of previous centuries? How has the theory of evolution served to magnify the kind of racism we have today?
