Buchner: "lowest human races...destruction"

  • Thread starter Thread starter davidford
  • Start date Start date
Status
Not open for further replies.
D

davidford

Guest
Buchner was a big atheism-adherent Darwinist in post-Darwin, pre-Holocaust Germany.

Buchner, Ludwig. 1872. Der Mensch und seine Stellung in der Natur, 2nd edition (Leipzig), 147. Cited in
Weikart, Richard. 2004. From Darwin to Hitler: Evolutionary Ethics, Eugenics, and Racism in Germany (USA: Palgrave Macmillan), 312pp., 191. About Weikart’s book:
groups.google.com/groups?selm=b1c67abe.0407030531.19253d93%40posting.google.com
“The white or Caucasian human species is ordained
to take dominion of the earth, while the lowest
human races, like Americans, Australians, Alfuren,
Hottentots, and such others, are proceeding toward
their destruction with huge steps.”

Compare:

1871 Darwin: [CD]“the civilised races of man”-- e.g. [CD]“the Caucasian”-- [CD]“will almost certainly exterminate and replace throughout the world the savage races”-- e.g. [CD]“the negro or Australian,” as in Australian aborigine-- with the end result being [CD]“man in a more civilised state, as we may hope, than the Caucasian”
groups.google.com/groups?selm=b1c67abe.0407060404.711490be%40posting.google.com

//////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////
Darwin: “the New Zealander… compares his future fate with that of the native rat now almost exterminated by the European rat”
groups.google.com/groups?selm=dford3-1135178729.788016.144250%40o13g2000cwo.googlegroups.com

Darwin: “The remarkable success of the English as colonists, compared to other European nations, has been ascribed to their ‘daring and persistent energy’; a result which is well illustrated by comparing the progress of the Canadians of English and French extraction…”
groups.google.com/groups?selm=dford3-1135653955.843480.126470%40g44g2000cwa.googlegroups.com

Darwin: [Greg]“the careless, squalid, unaspiring Irishman multiplies like rabbits”
groups.google.com/groups?selm=dford3-1135088486.532238.194930%40g44g2000cwa.googlegroups.com

Darwin on correlation between human skin colour and odour
groups.google.com/groups?selm=dford3-1135051524.767332.265230%40o13g2000cwo.googlegroups.com

Darwin: big “supra-orbital ridges… characteristic of the lower races of man”
google.com/groups?selm=dford3-1137443730.121635.125640%40z14g2000cwz.googlegroups.com

Darwin praise for Buchner, Rolle, T.H. Huxley, & Haeckel
groups.google.com/groups?selm=dford3-1134766736.390460.205460%40o13g2000cwo.googlegroups.com

your freethought/ atheism conversion experience?
groups.google.com/groups?selm=dford3-1135012135.008700.163480%40g49g2000cwa.googlegroups.com

Multi-Pronged Role of Darwinian Thought in Shoah’s Arrival
google.com/groups?selm=dford3-1132080322.482544.299440%40g49g2000cwa.googlegroups.com

Hitler’s actions make sense given his atheism and eugenic, social Darwinist vision
groups.google.co.in/groups?selm=dford3-1134145559.645139.229550%40f14g2000cwb.googlegroups.com
 
Today, evolutionists are not racists, because evolutionary theory has shown that there are no biological human races. Darwin did not know this, and being European, assumed whites were superior to others.

Where he differed from creationists, was in asserting that all men were entitled to their freedom and dignity.

Racism was never part of evolutionary theory. However, it has been a constant in creationism. Here’s one of the chief modern creationists on the subject:

"Yet the prophecy again has its obverse side. Somehow they have only gone so far and no farther. The Japhethites and Semites have, sooner or later, taken over their territories, and their inventions, and then developed them and utilized them for their own enlargement. Often the Hamites, especially the Negroes, have become actual personal servants or even slaves to the others. Possessed of a genetic character concerned mainly with mundane matters, they have eventually been displaced by the intellectual and philosophical acumen of the Japhethites and the religious zeal of the Semites."
Henry Morris, director of the Institute for Creation Research in The Beginning Of the World, Second Edition (1991), pp. 147-148:

If a biologist said that, his career would be ruined. But creationists didn’t even blink when one of their leaders attributed intellectual and spiritual inferiority to blacks.

It’s one of the more important differences between scientists and creationists.
 
Another thread trying to imply that folks who accept evolution are Nazis?

Enough already!
 
40.png
cathologos:
Another thread trying to imply that folks who accept evolution are Nazis?
Click to expand...
Meaning of “evolution”?

legerdemain in the use of the word ‘evolution’
google.com/groups?selm=dford3-1132102419.915797.111840%40o13g2000cwo.googlegroups.com
 
40.png
davidford:
Meaning of “evolution”?

legerdemain in the use of the word ‘evolution’
google.com/groups?selm=dford3-1132102419.915797.111840%40o13g2000cwo.googlegroups.com
Click to expand...
You’re so right - the word “evolution” can mean different things in different contexts. It can simply mean change over time - in that sense, a person evolves over their lifetime. Similarly, it could just say that the variety of life on Earth has changed over time. Another possible meaning involves the mechanisms of change - variation and selection being a terse statement of this particular meaning. This is the scientific theory descended from Charles Darwin’s (blessed be his holy beard) ideas.

In general, it should be obvious which meaning is meant. In the case of cathologos, it seems clear that the meaning was the one regarding mechanisms.
 
I would just like to point out that the bible has been used to promote racism. Once as a teenager I attended my friend’s Sunday School class as a guest. Much to my shock the Sunday School teacher-I think that she was the pastor’s wife-began to use the bible to teach the kids that the races shouldn’t intermarry. I can’t remember what verses she used but even at 14 I knew that they were taken out of context and twisted.

Simply because the bible has been used in the past to support racism doesn’t mean that the bible or Christianity suppports racism.

The same can be true of evolution. Having evolutionary leaders support racism does not make the theory of evolution racist. In fact the theory of evolution teaches nothing about morals. It isn’t meant to.

If we discont any science theory because of the moral failings of its originators then we will have to do away with any physics discovered by Sir Issac Newton. Despite his contributions to science, Newton was supposed to have been a very difficult and vendictive person.
 
deb1:
I would just like to point out that the bible has been
used to promote racism. Once as a teenager I attended
my friend’s Sunday School class as a guest. Much to
my shock the Sunday School teacher-I think that she
was the pastor’s wife-began to use the bible to teach
the kids that the races shouldn’t intermarry. I can’t
remember what verses she used but even at 14 I knew
that they were taken out of context and twisted.
Click to expand...
“can’t remember what verses she used but even at 14 I knew that they were taken out of context and twisted.”
I see.
Simply because the bible has been used in the past to
support racism doesn’t mean that the bible or
Christianity suppports racism.

The same can be true of evolution.
Click to expand...
Meaning of “evolution”?
groups.google.com/groups?selm=dford3-386md9F5lsv5cU1%40individual.net

1871 Darwin:
_ _ He [man] has given rise to many races, some
_ _ of which differ so much from each other, that they have
_ _ often been ranked by naturalists as distinct species.
1871 Darwin:
_ _ …since he [man] attained to the rank of
_ _ manhood, he has diverged into distinct races, or as they
_ _ may be more fitly called, sub-species. Some of these,
_ _ such as the Negro and European, are so distinct that, if
_ _ specimens had been brought to a naturalist without any
_ _ further information, they would undoubtedly have been
_ _ considered by him as good and true species.
groups.google.com/groups?selm=dford3-1134742746.958656.6900%40f14g2000cwb.googlegroups.com

1859 Darwin vs. the Judeo-Christian conception of the unity of man
groups.google.com/groups?selm=dford3-1120016676.023811.113660%40g47g2000cwa.googlegroups.com
Having evolutionary
leaders support racism does not make the theory of
evolution racist. In fact the theory of evolution teaches
nothing about morals. It isn’t meant to.
Click to expand...
“the theory of evolution teaches nothing about morals”
What is “the theory of evolution”?

Do you agree with any of this Wilson?:

1997 E.O. Wilson
groups.google.com/groups?selm=dford3-b1c67abe.0408121848.fb6ab07%40posting.google.com
_ _ scientific materialism
_ _ explains vastly more of the tangible world, physical and
_ _ biological, in precise and useful detail, than the Iron-Age
_ _ theology and mysticism bequeathed us by the modern great
_ _ religions ever dreamed. It offers an epic view of the origin
_ _ and meaning of humanity far greater, and I believe more
_ _ noble, than conceived by all the prophets of old combined.
_ _ Its discoveries suggest that, like it or not, we are alone. We
_ _ must measure and judge ourselves, and we will decide our
_ _ own destiny.
If we discont any science theory because of the moral
failings of its originators then we will have to do away
with any physics discovered by Sir Issac Newton.
Despite his contributions to science, Newton was
supposed to have been a very difficult and vendictive
person.
Click to expand...
“Newton was… a very difficult and vendictive person”
It’s much worse than that:

Newton was a creationist regarding biology.
groups.google.com/groups?selm=dford3-3877igF5kk9siU2%40individual.net
 
The Barbarian:
evolutionary theory has shown that there are no
biological human races.
Click to expand...
Details, please.
When was this “shown”?
Darwin did not know this, and
being European, assumed whites were superior to
others.
Click to expand...
Including those of [Darwin]“Semitic stock”?

[1871/ 74 Darwin]“Europeans and Hindoos… belong to the same Aryan stock… Jews… belong to the Semitic stock”
[1872 Darwin]“Blushing is evident in all the Aryan nations of Europe… The
Semitic races blush freely, as might have been expected, from their
general similitude to the Aryans.”
[Darwin]“Dr. Saviotti in… 1871… remarks that it more frequently
occurs in prognathous skulls, not of the Aryan race, than in others”
groups.google.com/groups?selm=dford3-1132942108.117285.130610%40z14g2000cwz.googlegroups.com
Where he differed from creationists, was in asserting
that all men were entitled to their freedom and dignity.
Click to expand...
Refs?
Racism was never part of evolutionary theory.
Click to expand...
Do you think “racism was never part of” Descent of Man?

Darwin: big “supra-orbital ridges… characteristic of the lower races of man”
google.com/groups?selm=dford3-1137443730.121635.125640%40z14g2000cwz.googlegroups.com

1871 Darwin: [CD]“the civilised races of man”-- e.g. [CD]“the Caucasian”-- [CD]“will almost certainly exterminate and replace throughout the world the savage races”-- e.g. [CD]“the negro or Australian,” as in Australian aborigine-- with the end result being [CD]“man in a more civilised state, as we may hope, than the Caucasian”
groups.google.com/groups?selm=b1c67abe.0407060404.711490be%40posting.google.com

Do you think Huxley was a racist?

Huxley, T.H. 1865. “Emancipation-Black and White”
aleph0.clarku.edu/huxley/CE3/B&W.html
_ _ It may be quite true that some negroes are
_ _ better than some white men; but no rational
_ _ man, cognisant of the facts, believes that the
_ _ average negro is the equal, still [67] less the
_ _ superior, of the average white man. And, if
_ _ this be true, it is simply incredible that, when
_ _ all his disabilities are removed, and our
_ _ prognathous relative has a fair field and no
_ _ favour, as well as no oppressor, he will be
_ _ able to compete successfully with his bigger-
_ _ brained and smaller-jawed rival, in a contest
_ _ which is to be carried on by thoughts and not
_ _ by bites.
_ _ ==
_ _ Supposing, however, that all these arguments have a
_ _ certain foundation; admitting, for a moment, that they are
_ _ comparable to those by which the inferiority of the negro
_ _ to the white man may be demonstrated, are they of any
_ _ value as against woman-emancipation? Do they afford us
_ _ the smallest ground for refusing to educate women as
_ _ well as men-- to give women the same civil and political
_ _ rights as men? No mistake is so commonly made by
_ _ clever people as that of assuming a cause to be bad
_ _ because the arguments of its supporters are, to a great
_ _ extent, non-[71] sensical.
 
EnterTheBowser:
You’re so right - the word “evolution” can mean
different things in different contexts. It can simply mean
change over time - in that sense, a person evolves
over their lifetime. Similarly, it could just say that the
variety of life on Earth has changed over time. Another
possible meaning involves the mechanisms of change -
variation and selection being a terse statement of this
particular meaning. This is the scientific theory
descended from Charles Darwin’s (blessed be his holy
beard) ideas.
Click to expand...
“Another possible meaning involves the mechanisms of change - variation and selection being a terse statement of this particular meaning”

historical background to rise and fall of the Synthetic Euphoria; 1936 A. Franklin Shull
groups.google.com/groups?selm=b1c67abe.0403271329.1e569adf%40posting.google.com

URLs in
Hitler’s human breeding plan using selection + mutations
groups.google.com/groups?selm=dford3-1124684179.251743.95950%40o13g2000cwo.googlegroups.com
groups.google.com/groups?selm=dford3-1124731489.829229.220700%40g47g2000cwa.googlegroups.com
 
Davidford, do you EVER say/post anything that is of your own origination?
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top