Is racism scientific?

[Wootah]

Is racism scientific?

Answer seems yes.

https://www.google.com/amp/s/nypost.com ... -says/amp/

Isn't our racism just part of our sin nature?

[EarthScienceguy]

[Replying to post 44 by Danmark]

I've seldom seen such absolute nonsense strong together so consistently before. You've supported NOTHING you claim about race or science. What Hitler or some other nut who did not understand science did is irrelevant. Neither Darwin nor evolution teaches racism or even that race is a scientific concept. It is a social construct used by racists, not scientists.
Today, the mainstream belief among scientists is that race is a social construct without biological meaning

Cecil Rhodes was gleefully embracing Darwin’s thinking as justification for white expansion across southern Africa. He was so inspired by Darwinian evolutionist Winwood Reade’s The Martyrdom of Man that he later confessed, “That book has made me what I am.�

What it made him was the architect of one of the most brutal and immoral acts of European expansion and genocide in history. Rhodes wrote in 1877:

I contend that we are the finest race in the world and that the more of the world we inhabit the better it is for the human race. . . . It is our duty to seize every opportunity of acquiring more territory and we should keep this one idea steadily before our eyes that more territory simply means more of the Anglo-Saxon race, more of the best, the most human, most honorable race the world possesses.


In Darwin's book The Descent of Man, which explores the theory of natural selection and its implications upon humanity, Darwin offers an explanation for the “great break in the organic chain,� which some pointed to as evidence contradicting his theories, saying that, “these breaks depend merely on the number of related forms which have become extinct.� He then proceeds to give an illustration making his meaning clear:

At some future period, not very distant from as measured by centuries, the civilized races of man will almost certainly exterminate, and replace, the savage races throughout the world….The break between man and his nearest allies will then be wider, for it will intervene between man in a more civilized state, as we may hope, than the Caucasian, and some apes as low as a baboon, instead of as now between the negro or Australian and the gorilla.

In Galton’s major work, Inquiries into Human Faculty and its Development, he advocated for the gradual extermination of the “lower races� through deliberate breeding of the higher “stock.� He concludes that:

The question then arises as to the way in which man can assist in the order of events. I reply, by furthering the course of evolution. He may use his intelligence to discover and expedite the changes that are necessary to adapt circumstance to race and race to circumstance, and his kindly sympathy will urge him to effect them mercifully.

Galton himself attempted to “further the course of evolution� through a variety of means and methods. Most outrageously, he proposed colonizing Africa with the Chinese in hopes that the latter would breed-out the former, extinguishing the inhabitants of that continent entirely. He writes:

My proposal is to make the encouragement of the Chinese settlements at one or more suitable places on the East Coast of Africa a par of our national policy, in the belief that the Chinese immigrants would not only maintain their position, but that they would multiply and their descendants supplant the inferior Negro race. I should expect the large part of the African seaboard, now sparsely occupied by lazy, palavering savages…might in a few years be tenanted by industrious, order loving Chinese…

Stephen Jay Gould (famed evolutionist at Harvard University) stated in 1977:

Biological arguments for racism may have been common before 1859, but they increased by orders of magnitude following the acceptance of evolutionary theory.

Darwin:

“At some future period, not very distant as measured by centuries, the civilized races of man will almost certainly exterminate and replace throughout the world the savage races. At the same time the anthropomorphous [i.e., most human-looking] apes — will no doubt be exterminated. The break will then be rendered wider, for it will intervene between man in a more civilized state, as we may hope, than the Caucasian, and some ape as low as a baboon, instead of as at present between the negro or Australian and the gorilla.�


Get it? Ranking the human races, we find the Caucasian at top, and down at the bottom, dangling at the edge of humanity, “the negro or Australian� who is just an evolutionary hairsbreadth away from the anthropomorphous gorilla. In pushing upwards to the über-Caucasian, evolution also exterminates all the “intermediate species,� so that natural selection will do away with the Negro, the aboriginal Australian, and the gorilla.

As Hitler made clear in Mein Kampf, the fundamental political category is biological. Consequently, “the highest aim of human existence is not the maintenance of a State or Government but rather the conservation of the race.� This aim accords with Hitler’s larger Darwinian view of the cosmos, wherein the “fundamental law of necessity� reigning “throughout the realm of Nature� is that “existence is subject to the law of eternal struggle and strife…where the strong are always the masters of the weak and where those subject to such laws must obey them or be destroyed.� Survival of the fittest.

Hence Hitler’s creation of a kind of “folk� religion, that is, a religion of the racially defined Volk. Worship was directed to the Germanic race as the only one capable of eliminating the weak and bringing the übermensch — “superman� — into existence in accordance with the cruelties of Nature. Hitler’s words all too clearly portend the atrocities to come when the Nazis gained power:

“T]he völkisch concept of the world recognizes that the primordial racial elements are of the greatest significance for mankind. In principle, the State is looked upon only as a means to an end and this end is the conservation of the racial characteristics of mankind. Therefore on the völkisch principle we cannot admit that one race is equal to another. By recognizing that they are different, the völkisch concept separates mankind into races of superior and inferior quality. On the basis of this recognition it feels bound, in conformity with the eternal Will that dominates the universe, to postulate the victory of the better and stronger and the subordination of the inferior and weaker… For in a world which would be composed of mongrels and negroids all ideals of human beauty and nobility and all hopes of an idealized future for our humanity would be lost for ever.�

I could go on but this is already getting quite long.

Evolution is responsible for some of the greatest atrocities that have occured on this planet.

[EarthScienceguy]

[Replying to post 46 by Danmark]

My elder sister-in-law has been changed since about 3 years, like me that became religious since 10 years..
And she accepts and submits that she is lower than men!

You and EarthScienceguy appear to support racism and sexism.

I am not quite sure what you are using as support for your thesis here. But it appears that you are attempting to lump all of religion into the same category.

Slavery was ended by Christians who believed in the face of heated opposition that there was actually only one race of the man the human race. It was this belief that all men were created equal with certain inalienable rights. Which I described in the following article.



Linking Christianity to sexism and racism is a difficult task. The CHRISTIAN west has always led to the world in the liberation of women and minorities.

[Bust Nak]

[Replying to post 50 by EarthScienceguy]

He was right, wasn't he? The question is, why do you think that's racist? Is it because you thought "exterminate and replace" meant killing them?

[EarthScienceguy]

[Replying to post 53 by Bust Nak]

What are you talking about?

[Daedalus X]

[Replying to post 50 by EarthScienceguy]
The question is, why do you think that's racist?

Calling some civilized races of man and others as the savage races, is kind of racist.

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.

Notice how he equates the negro or Australian as being closer to the gorilla than the Caucasian is to the gorilla. That would be a racist presupposition.

[Danmark]

But I take your point that we should not permit religious views that lead to considerations of a woman's inferiority or that of a race. But then we cannot quote Saint Paul or we consider the Koran verboten, and we must desert our holy bible in places.

Exactly.
We must either admit that all three of the Abrahamic religions are racist and sexist, or we must agree that their scriptures are 'culture bound;' that they may include wisdom, perhaps even inspired wisdom, but that ultimately they are hopelessly tainted by the patriarchal culture from which they sprang.

In any event, this forum should forbid outright lies, dishonesty, racism and sexism. It does not. If a religion stands for racism, slavery, sexism, or dishonesty (or all of those) that is excused on religious grounds; as is is the belief the Earth is flat and that it was created 6000 years ago in 6 days. In short, religion stands for the proposition you can express any belief, no matter how foul, evil, or ignorant, as long as it is cloaked in the mantle of 'religion.'

[Bust Nak]

What are you talking about?

I am talking about how the civilised races are indeed replacing the savage races, just as Darwin predicted.

Calling some civilized races of man and others as the savage races, is kind of racist.

That's based on cultural differences.

Notice how he equates the negro or Australian as being closer to the gorilla than the Caucasian is to the gorilla. That would be a racist presupposition.

Not if you understood that Darwin argued that Caucasian, the negro and Australian are the same species.

[EarthScienceguy]

[Replying to Bust Nak]

Not if you understood that Darwin argued that Caucasian, the negro and Australian are the same species.

Darwin did not believe that Caucasians, the negro and Australian are the same species.

You have to get your time correct. Before Darwin proposed his evolutionary hypothesis he did support abolition, even in his first book entitled "On the Origin of Species by Means of Natural Selection, or the Preservation of Favoured Races in the Struggle for Life" Darwin did not go through the evolution of man.

But then in his second work written in 1871, "The descent of man" this is when he made many of his racist claims. It seems his evolutionary theory turned him into a racist.

[EarthScienceguy]

[Replying to post 56 by Danmark]

In any event, this forum should forbid outright lies, dishonesty, racism and sexism. It does not. If a religion stands for racism, slavery, sexism, or dishonesty (or all of those) that is excused on religious grounds; as is is the belief the Earth is flat and that it was created 6000 years ago in 6 days. In short, religion stands for the proposition you can express any belief, no matter how foul, evil, or ignorant, as long as it is cloaked in the mantle of 'religion.'

Again what are you using as a standard for your beliefs about what is foul, evil or ignorant?

There are any things that people express in this forum that are foul, evil or ignorant and I do not think that we would agree. That is why this is called a debate forum. If you think something is foul, evil or ignorant you can express your opinion with facts in support of your ideas.

Others might have facts in support of their ideas even if you think they are foul, evil or ignorant. This is why people are on the forum to discuss ideas.

[Daedalus X]

Not if you understood that Darwin argued that Caucasian, the negro and Australian are the same species.

I am having difficulty finding such an argument, can you post a link to it? I would like to see his exact wording.

I did find this thou.

True, he was committed to a monogenic, rather than the prevailing polygenic, view of human origins, but he still divided humanity into distinct races according to differences in skin, eye or hair colour. He was also convinced that evolution was progressive, and that the white races—especially the Europeans—were evolutionarily more advanced than the black races, thus establishing race differences and a racial hierarchy.
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC2672903/

I am not saying that Darwin was more racist than his peers. He was not, but he was still a racist by our standards. Just as Hilary and even Obama were considered to be homophobic just a dozen or so years ago.

Darwin's theory, on the other hand, is racist. It claims that when members of a race become isolated they will evolve at different rates based on their environments. Selection pressure will create a more advanced population if it has to deal with harsh and deadly winters, compared to people who live in a tropical paradise where the living is easy.

Science has turned the whole world into a paradise, so people of lower intelligence are now reproducing at greater rates than the more intelligent members of society.