The Dark Side of Darwin's Legacy

[Nick the Pilot]

Q&A: Dennis Sewell on Charles Darwin's Dark Legacy - TIME

This year marks the 200th anniversary of the birth of Charles Darwin, and Nov. 24 marks the 150th anniversary of the publication of On the Origin of Species, the landmark work in which Darwin laid forth his theory of natural selection. While celebrations have emphasized the British naturalist's giant role in the advancement of human progress, British political journalist Dennis Sewell is not convinced. In a new book, The Political Gene: How Darwin's Ideas Changed Politics, he highlights how often — and how easily — Darwin's big idea has been harnessed for sinister political ends. According to Sewell, evolution is scientifically undeniable, but its contribution to human well-being is unclear.

Should we reassess Darwin's legacy?
Bicentennial celebrations have portrayed Darwin as a kindly old gentleman pottering around an English house and garden. What that misses is the way his ideas were abused in the 20th century and the way in which Darwin was wrong about certain key issues. He asserted that different races of mankind had traveled different distances along the evolutionary path — white Caucasians were at the top of the racial hierarchy, while black and brown people ranked below. [Racism] was a widespread prejudice in British society at the time, but he presented racial hierarchy as a matter of science. He also held that the poor were genetically second-rate — which inspired eugenics. (See a photo-essay on Darwin.)

In your research, you found vestiges of this warped way of thinking in an unexpectedly modern setting: school shootings.
Pekka-Eric Auvinen, a Finnish schoolboy who murdered eight people at his high school in November 2007, wrote on his blog that "stupid, weak-minded people are reproducing ... faster than the intelligent, strong-minded" ones. Auvinen thought through the philosophical implications of Darwin's work and came to the conclusion that human life is like every other type of animal life: it has no extraordinary value. The Columbine killers made similar arguments. One of the shooters, Eric Harris, wore a "Natural Selection" shirt on the day of the massacre. These are examples of how easily Darwin's writings can lead to very disturbed ways of thinking.

You believe that Darwin should continue to be taught in schools. But how can we teach Darwin and also teach that humans are somehow exceptional in the natural world? Wasn't his great breakthrough to show that humans, like all animals, share a common origin?
I think we have to decide what status we are going to give to the human race. Most of the world's religions hold that human life is sacred and special in some way. In teaching our common descent with animals, we also have to examine what is special about human beings, and why they deserve to be treated differently and granted certain rights.

Are you concerned that your ideas will be trumpeted by the creationist movement?
Science is a big enough interest group. It can look after itself. (Read "The Ever Evolving Theories of Darwin.")

We understand now that eugenics was an illegitimate science, so why even worry about it today?
The thinking behind eugenics is still present. Many senior geneticists point to a genetically engineered future. As the technology for this falls into place, there has also been an explosion of the field of evolutionary psychology that tries to describe every element of human behavior as genetically determined. What we will begin to see is scientists arguing for the use of genetics to breed out certain behavioral traits from humanity.

Is it that you oppose artificial selection in principle, or that you feel scientists are still too far away from a full understanding of genetics to be making such decisions?
Who is going to make the value judgment of what is human enhancement and what makes a human better? I don't feel comfortable with such judgments being left to scientists.

All things considered, do you believe Darwin was a great luminary in the path of human progress?
What has the theory of evolution done for the practical benefit of humanity? It's helped our understanding of ourselves, yet compared to, say, the discovery of penicillin or the invention of the World Wide Web, I wonder why Darwin occupies this position at the pinnacle of esteem. I can only imagine he has been put there by a vast public relations exercise.

 

[Dharmaatmaa]

"What has the theory of evolution done for the practical benefit of humanity?"
Well, a good question you asked.......... I thought the same for 1000000000 of times!! Nothing, I guess. Or it's "not enough scientifical"? My opinion I mean.
And Darwin's inverntion certainly can't be "compared to, say, the discovery of penicillin or the invention of the World Wide Web"...
Scientists just must do something to be payed by our taxes.

 

[Nick the Pilot]

I can think of one benefit. Many people are not happy with an evangelical type of religion. Ideas like Darwinism can give such people motivation to consider something besides an evangelical type of religion. It never hurts to urge people to be open-minded and consider new ideas.

 

[Dharmaatmaa]

Right you are, I think. Evangelical stories are only for children in kindergartens!
But there exist other ways of explaining the world. And they are much less narrow-minded than those of darwinists. I mean oriental psychology. It explains everything, but I do not recomend you to find info of the real psychology from Americans or Europeans.
People like you (with brains) worth to know the truth, but you have to search by yourself. I just wanna say we mustn't believe in something only because the scientists told you that!

 

[iBrian]

Should we reassess Darwin's legacy?
Bicentennial celebrations have portrayed Darwin as a kindly old gentleman pottering around an English house and garden. What that misses is the way his ideas were abused in the 20th century and the way in which Darwin was wrong about certain key issues. He asserted that different races of mankind had traveled different distances along the evolutionary path — white Caucasians were at the top of the racial hierarchy, while black and brown people ranked below. [Racism] was a widespread prejudice in British society at the time, but he presented racial hierarchy as a matter of science. He also held that the poor were genetically second-rate — which inspired eugenics. (See a photo-essay on Darwin.)

Indeed, those views were products of the time - but don't appear to have been a part of mainstream science for a long while.

What needs to be remembered is that Darwin did not define everything about evolutionary theory as we have now - it has progressed quite a bit - what Origin of Species did was present a profound point about human development that had hitherto not been considered, and human learning is very much advanced because of his observations, setting up a whole new track in the development of science.

In your research, you found vestiges of this warped way of thinking in an unexpectedly modern setting: school shootings.
Pekka-Eric Auvinen, a Finnish schoolboy who murdered eight people at his high school in November 2007, wrote on his blog that "stupid, weak-minded people are reproducing ... faster than the intelligent, strong-minded" ones. Auvinen thought through the philosophical implications of Darwin's work and came to the conclusion that human life is like every other type of animal life: it has no extraordinary value. The Columbine killers made similar arguments. One of the shooters, Eric Harris, wore a "Natural Selection" shirt on the day of the massacre. These are examples of how easily Darwin's writings can lead to very disturbed ways of thinking.

It's something they could easily have gotten from Mendelev with his bean studies, or general trait-preference breeding already present in thousands of years of agricultural history.

Darwin did not dictate boys should run with guns any more than Michael Faraday dictated that electricity would be a great way to kill murderers in the justice system.

As theory, evolution is a tool. Like much of science, the tools are used and abused by wider society.

You believe that Darwin should continue to be taught in schools. But how can we teach Darwin and also teach that humans are somehow exceptional in the natural world? Wasn't his great breakthrough to show that humans, like all animals, share a common origin?
I think we have to decide what status we are going to give to the human race. Most of the world's religions hold that human life is sacred and special in some way. In teaching our common descent with animals, we also have to examine what is special about human beings, and why they deserve to be treated differently and granted certain rights.

Even better - we should consider the rights of the rest of the world, instead of continuing the same destructive Biblical thinking that designs all the world is nothing more than something for us to use at our leisure. We should instead be thinking about how to use what we have in the world more responsibly - and with the respect it deserves.

We understand now that eugenics was an illegitimate science, so why even worry about it today?
The thinking behind eugenics is still present. Many senior geneticists point to a genetically engineered future. As the technology for this falls into place, there has also been an explosion of the field of evolutionary psychology that tries to describe every element of human behavior as genetically determined. What we will begin to see is scientists arguing for the use of genetics to breed out certain behavioral traits from humanity.

Indeed, but it's not the fault of Darwin, Mendelev, or any of the early pioneers of evolution and genetics that their ideas can be abused by the common masses and allowed to do so by spineless politicians and feeble self-interested religious "leaders".

All things considered, do you believe Darwin was a great luminary in the path of human progress?
What has the theory of evolution done for the practical benefit of humanity? It's helped our understanding of ourselves, yet compared to, say, the discovery of penicillin or the invention of the World Wide Web, I wonder why Darwin occupies this position at the pinnacle of esteem. I can only imagine he has been put there by a vast public relations exercise.

What Darwin proposed was world-changing - not in a practical sense like Fleming with penicillin, but on a more fundamental level such as Galileo observing that the solar system does not revolve around the earth.

What was Galileo's observation ever done to heal people? Probably nothing directly, but he contributed greatly to the truth of the human condition and our place in the universe - something Darwin also contributed significantly to.

The benefits tend to be more indirect than direct - our quest for greater understanding of space gives rise to a range of by-product technologies for public use, and Darwin's original ideas have inspired a whole new way of not simply looking at humanity, but out relationship with the world, plus real research avenues in understanding ecosystems, species development and conservation, and biological development, not least in identification of genetic traits and their development, specifically for future medicinal development.

 

[nativeastral]

a programme which fits in well here i rooted oot in time due to this OP but which only has a few hours replay Race and Intelligence: Science's Last Taboo - 4oD - Channel 4 but extended via articles/comments here which may be accessible outwith UK
Race and Intelligence: Science's Last Taboo - Race and Intelligence: Science's Last Taboo - Channel 4

 

[citizenzen]

All things considered, do you believe Darwin was a great luminary in the path of human progress?
What has the theory of evolution done for the practical benefit of humanity? It's helped our understanding of ourselves, yet compared to, say, the discovery of penicillin or the invention of the World Wide Web, I wonder why Darwin occupies this position at the pinnacle of esteem. I can only imagine he has been put there by a vast public relations exercise.

The dude was doing fine until this last answer revealed his real contempt towards CD.

Don't hate. Just appreciate.

 

[Nick the Pilot]

Brian, you said,

"What needs to be remembered is that Darwin did not define everything about evolutionary theory as we have now - it has progressed quite a bit...."

--> The same can be said of Freud. We look back on Freud’s ideas, and we can see how some of them are laughable. But we have taken Freud’s ideas and progressed them much farther than he did. We have to remember that, before Freud, there was nothing called psychology, and he started it all. Today, we can stand on Freud’s shoulders and see a lot farther than he could, and we are lucky we had Freud to "get the ball rolling." The same can be said for Darwin.

"…we should consider the rights of the rest of the world, instead of continuing the same destructive Biblical thinking that designs all the world is nothing more than something for us to use at our leisure."

--> True. Genesis says the world is here only for humanity’s use. It is not. Plants and animals have just as much right to use this planet as we humans do, and Genesis fails to put humanity in a proper perspective that shows us in a cooperative role with plants and animals.

"What was Galileo's observation ever done to heal people? Probably nothing directly, but he contributed greatly to the truth of the human condition and our place in the universe - something Darwin also contributed significantly to."

--> True. Some people think the only good contribution a person can make for humanity is to make better food for us to eat or better clothes for us to wear. But man does not live by bread alone – he/she also lives by ideas that help us better understand our place in the universe, and the meaning of life. Darwin, Freud, and many others have contributed greatly to our ability to do just that.

 

[Avi]

--> True. Genesis says the world is here only for humanity’s use.

Nick is once again groping for ways to support his hidden agenda. Attacking Darwin is a convenient way to covertly support his race theories.

I have also seen enough of Nick's debating style to see how he approaches it. He throws out a little tide bit like "The Dark Side of Darwin's Legacy" to see if anyone bites hook line and sinker. Then he, himself, offers lukewarm support for the ideas, while he is testing the waters. I suspect Nick is a Darwin rejectionist, but we are not even sure from his posts. Nick stays right below the radar to avoid detection .

It is not. Plants and animals have just as much right to use this planet as we humans do, and Genesis fails to put humanity in a proper perspective that shows us in a cooperative role with plants and animals.

Oh, very nice, Nick, you are a real plant and animal lover, why not just join PETA instead of the Theosophist Club. Now that you are posting in the Science sub-forum we can debate your real goals once again.

Are you concerned that your ideas will be trumpeted by the creationist movement?

More likely groups like the Theosophists.

 

[citizenzen]

This paragraph from Darwin's The Variation of Animals and Plants Under Domestication is being put forth as an example of his racism...

These latter facts remind us of the statements, so frequently made by travellers in all parts of the world, on the degraded state and savage disposition of crossed races of man. That many excellent and kind-hearted mulattos have existed no one will dispute; and a more mild and gentle set of men could hardly be found than the inhabitants of the island of Chiloe, who consist of Indians commingled with Spaniards in various proportions. On the other hand, many years ago, long before I had thought of the present subject, I was struck with the fact that, in South America, men of complicated descent between Negroes, Indians, and Spaniards, seldom had, whatever the cause might be, a good expression. (13/47. 'Journal of Researches' 1845 page 71.) Livingstone--and a more unimpeachable authority cannot be quoted,--after speaking of a half-caste man on the Zambesi, described by the Portuguese as a rare monster of inhumanity, remarks, "It is unaccountable why half-castes, such as he, are so much more cruel than the Portuguese, but such is undoubtedly the case." An inhabitant remarked to Livingstone, "God made white men, and God made black men, but the Devil made halfcastes." (13/48. 'Expedition to the Zambesi' 1865 pages 25, 150.) When two races, both low in the scale, are crossed the progeny seems to be eminently bad. Thus the noble- hearted Humboldt, who felt no prejudice against the inferior races, speaks in strong terms of the bad and savage disposition of Zambos, or half-castes between Indians and Negroes; and this conclusion has been arrived at by various observers. (13/49. Dr. P. Broca on 'Hybridity in the Genus Homo' English translation 1864 page 39.) From these facts we may perhaps infer that the degraded state of so many half-castes is in part due to reversion to a primitive and savage condition, induced by the act of crossing, even if mainly due to the unfavourable moral conditions under which they are generally reared.​

This issue reminds me of the U.S. Founding Fathers, who created a government based on freedom and liberty and "all men are created equal", yet they owned slaves.

Everybody is a product of their time and the conventional wisdom of that era. I am not surprised to find that true or CD. I am, however, not going to throw out the discoveries and advances he brought about simply because he held to some outdated beliefs.

 

[Nick the Pilot]

Darwin may well have been a racist, I don't know. Brian has pointed out that such thoughts were common and accepted in the 1800's. But we are making a mistaken deductive leap is we think that Darwin was using his theories to advance racist ideas.

No doubt his observations got him thinking about the whole idea of "human natural selection" -- who wouldn't have done the same thing? But it again a mistaken deductive leap to think his racist ideas were motivations for his field observations of natural selection on Pacific islands. Darwin was qualified to make expert observations about turtles, and he had the same right as any man to have political convictions, and there is no reason to mix the two together.

 

[Nick the Pilot]

Was Darwin a racist?

 

[Dogbrain]

From my readings of Darwin's work, he was a racist, but no moreso than would have been any fairly well-off Englishman of his day. People who pretend to be horrified at Darwin's "racism" are of the same stripe as the revisionist historians who, in the 1970s and early 1980s, made a great deal over Abraham Lincoln's "racism". What is amusing is that the politicians who picked up and ran with that ball were, by and large, liberal Democrats trying to discredit the Republican Party all the way back to its formation. Now, the "Lincoln was a racist!" cry is used by neo-Confederates in order to bolster their claim that the Secession was both legal and moral.

 

[Nick the Pilot]

Even if Darwin had been a racist, it does not mean that his theory had anything to do with racism. His theory was only about lizards and turtles that been separated onto different islands for thousands or millions of years, and had evolved to look differently as a result. He then extrapolaited his theory to include all life forms on earth. I do not think there is an inherent connection between such a theory and racism. Connecting Darwinism with racism is a deductive leap that is not justified.

 

[metaclovis]

From my readings of Darwin's work, he was a racist,

Then did you actually ever read anything written by Darwin himself? For to make such a statement I think you have not. Such a statement as you make is like saying the pope is an atheist, based on what he has said.

 

[immortalitylost]

You believe that Darwin should continue to be taught in schools. But how can we teach Darwin and also teach that humans are somehow exceptional in the natural world? Wasn't his great breakthrough to show that humans, like all animals, share a common origin?
I think we have to decide what status we are going to give to the human race. Most of the world's religions hold that human life is sacred and special in some way. In teaching our common descent with animals, we also have to examine what is special about human beings, and why they deserve to be treated differently and granted certain rights.

This whole paragraph is just lame. Why do you have to teach children that humans are somehow better than animals? Somehow exceptional to nature. Are we supernatural beings now? Seriously, what?

So, since the kid learns that animals are inferior creatures, it's perfectly alright for him to say, kill kittens, right? They are but lowly beasts after all.

Why not teach kids to respect life, no matter what kind of life.

People are always trying to elevate themselves above the beasts. Make themselves feel special, like they're on a whole other plane. Maybe that's the real reason this guy is dissing so hard on Darwin.

After all, Darwin's theory means that we are connected intimately to the rest of the "inferior" creatures in this world, not just plopped down among them by some God or another, and completely above and separate from them. Or better yet, ruling over them.

It's the idea that "lifeform one" is better, or more advanced than "lifeform two" that creates racism. That line of thinking vastly predates Darwinism. Take this example. Look at a chimpanzee. It's obviously different than us. Less obviously than other things, but still different. It behaves differently than us. Strangely. You could look at a chimpanzee's obvious physical differences and obviously different behavior, and conclude that, because of these factors, it is inferior to you. And people of every race have been taking that one step further, forever. They see obvious differences between them and people of their race, clan, nationality, whatever, and people of other races, clans, creeds, or nationalities. They see these differences, and conclude that the others must be less civilized. Because everyone knows that such and such is always done this way, or those people do that one thing, and we could never even think of doing that. Thus, racism is born. All you need are differences in appearance, the more differences the better, and differences in culture.

Anyways, why do we have to be so special? And the school shooting thing. How would teaching kids that people are "more special" than animals, and can't act in those "barbaric ways" lead to less school shootings? Because, honestly, most of those shootings happen for very human reasons. Not as some kind of natural selection lesson. The same things happen that happen with racism. These kids are made to feel "less than human" by other kids, and they in turn cast the kids that make them feel that way in "less than human" roles. That is why they write about stupid people breeding and wear natural selection tee-shirts. They cast their tormentors as the seed of stupid people, weaker than themselves, and them as predators of those stupid people, higher order beings.

Or it could just be scribbles of things that sound cool, and an ironic fashion choice. Who knows?

Yeah... long post. But I still hate that paragraph. People aren't any more special than dust mites. We're just different from them.

 

[Nick the Pilot]

Immortality Lost,

You said,

"Why do you have to teach children that humans are somehow better than animals?"

--> Because we believe that humans are at a much, much higher level of spiritual evolution than animals.

"Are we supernatural beings now? Seriously, what?"

--> We are not supernatural, but we are at a much, much higher level of spiritual evolution than animals.

"So, since the kid learns that animals are inferior creatures…"

--> I would not say inferior, I would say at a lower level of spiritual evolution.

"…it's perfectly alright for him to say, kill kittens, right?"

--> No. Just because a kitten is at a lower level of spiritual evolution does not justify us killing it.

"They are but lowly beasts after all."

--> They are "lowly beasts" who are on a path to higher spiritual evolution, just as we humans are.

"Why not teach kids to respect life, no matter what kind of life."

--> I do. You don’t?

"…Darwin's theory means that we are connected intimately to the rest of the "inferior" creatures in this world…"


--> We are.

"…not just plopped down among them by some God or another, and completely above and separate from them."

--> Yup, that’s how I see it

"Or better yet, ruling over them."

--> That’s not how I see it.

"It's the idea that "lifeform one" is better, or more advanced than "lifeform two" that creates racism."

--> No it is not. I can say I am more advanced than a kitten, which is true. A fifth grader is more advanced than a fourth grader, which is true. But that does not give me the right to hate kittens, or give fifth graders the right to hate fourth graders. I remember I child telling me how she hated a student from another school. I said, "Oh, you hate her just because she goes to another school, right?"
　
"You could look at a chimpanzee's obvious physical differences and obviously different behavior, and conclude that, because of these factors, it is inferior to you."

--> Define inferior. Does the word inferior contain the idea we right to hate chimpanzees because they are inferior? Also, it is clear to me that a chimpanzee is inferior to me – are you saying you do not think a chimpanzee is inferior to you?
　
"They see obvious differences between them and people of their race, clan, nationality, whatever, and people of other races, clans, creeds, or nationalities."

--> It important to learn how to make such distinctions.

"They see these differences, and conclude that the others must be less civilized. Because everyone knows that such and such is always done this way, or those people do that one thing, and we could never even think of doing that. Thus, racism is born. All you need are differences in appearance, the more differences the better, and differences in culture."

--> Here is the key question: Is someone if from a less advanced civilization (and, yes, I think there are people from less advanced civilizations than mine) then does that mean they are less civilized? I say yes. But the difference is that all humans deserve a minimum of respect, and we must give them that minimum amount of respect. If we say that someone is less civilized, we then have to turn around and show them that we respect them as humans and that their happiness is important to us. Many people do the first, do not do the second, and that is the big mistake.

"…why do we have to be so special?"

--> Because we are.

"These kids are made to feel "less than human" by other kids…"

--> That is the essential mistake. One person cannot be "less human" than another person. One person can be less civilized, but to say that being less civilized means less human is a mistake.

 

[immortalitylost]

I said,

"Why do you have to teach children that humans are somehow better than animals?"

You replied,

--> Because we believe that humans are at a much, much higher level of spiritual evolution than animals.

We don't. Some people do. Obviously you do. From what I've seen of humans, we're smarter and that's about it. And I'm only allowing that much because it's proven.

--> We are not supernatural, but we are at a much, much higher level of spiritual evolution than animals.

Again, opinion. How is it that you measure spiritual evolution I wonder? Because when the chips are down, we're usually not much better than the animals we think we're so much more advanced than.

--> No. Just because a kitten is at a lower level of spiritual evolution does not justify us killing it.

No. What I'm saying is that it's not alright to kill something in the first place without need. The fact that it is a 'lower level being'--meaning simply that it is less intelligent than us, because that is how we universally make such distinctions--should not even come into it. But why put that thought of superiority of spirit in the kids head in the first place? It's obvious throughout time that if things are considered 'lower level beings', it's not seen as quite as bad to do them harm. It's even been seen as a good thing quite often, or the 'thing to do'. It's a well documented part of humanity. And it sickens me.

"They are but lowly beasts after all."

--> They are "lowly beasts" who are on a path to higher spiritual evolution, just as we humans are.

Then I submit that we are as well lowly beasts, and that we are in no way more special than them. I mean, you've said as much yourself. If we are on the same path, I fail to see how we are so much more special.

"Why not teach kids to respect life, no matter what kind of life."

--> I do. You don’t?

Obviously I do, which is why I asked why we wouldn't teach our children that instead of teaching them that we are better, more special, and all around more important than the rest of the inhabitants of this planet, when we have absolutely no proof-save that we are more advanced in one aspect, intelligence-that we are actually superior beings.

"…Darwin's theory means that we are connected intimately to the rest of the "inferior" creatures in this world…"

--> We are.

Again, obviously. That's why I said it...

"…not just plopped down among them by some God or another, and completely above and separate from them."

--> Yup, that’s how I see it

Right, you just think we're more special than them.

"Or better yet, ruling over them."

--> That’s not how I see it.

Well yay. Sadly, everyone does not see things the same way as you in that regard.

"It's the idea that "lifeform one" is better, or more advanced than "lifeform two" that creates racism."

I should have said here, prejudice.

--> No it is not. I can say I am more advanced than a kitten, which is true. A fifth grader is more advanced than a fourth grader, which is true. But that does not give me the right to hate kittens, or give fifth graders the right to hate fourth graders. I remember I child telling me how she hated a student from another school. I said, "Oh, you hate her just because she goes to another school, right?"

And there you've struck upon it. If a child can hate another child for such paltry differences as going to another school, how easy would you think that child would find hating something because it is of another species?
　
"You could look at a chimpanzee's obvious physical differences and obviously different behavior, and conclude that, because of these factors, it is inferior to you."

--> Define inferior. Does the word inferior contain the idea we right to hate chimpanzees because they are inferior? Also, it is clear to me that a chimpanzee is inferior to me – are you saying you do not think a chimpanzee is inferior to you?

Main Entry: in·fe·ri·or
Pronunciation: \in-ˈfir-ē-ər\
Function: adjective
Etymology: Middle English, from Latin, comparative of inferus lower — more at under
Date: 15th century
1 : situated lower down : lower
2 a : of low or lower degree or rank b : of poor quality : mediocre
3 : of little or less importance, value, or merit
4 a : situated below another and especially another similar superior part of an upright body b : situated in a relatively low posterior or ventral position in a quadrupedal body c (1) : situated below another plant part or organ (2) : abaxial
5 : relating to or being a subscript


Brought to you by the Merriam-Webster dictionary.


Those words don't exactly sound a loving description to me...


I see a chimpanzee as different from me. Not inferior, because a chimpanzee is not inferior in all aspects. If we are speaking of intelligence (which seems the only measuring stick we use as human beings when looking at other species) then it is technically inferior in the use of lower degree or rank. But it is also superior to humans in other areas of measure. And that's the crux. We can't say that we are more evolved than the chimpanzee. We have just evolved down different paths.

"They see obvious differences between them and people of their race, clan, nationality, whatever, and people of other races, clans, creeds, or nationalities."

--> It important to learn how to make such distinctions.

There is no need to learn. It is human instinct.

"They see these differences, and conclude that the others must be less civilized. Because everyone knows that such and such is always done this way, or those people do that one thing, and we could never even think of doing that. Thus, racism is born. All you need are differences in appearance, the more differences the better, and differences in culture."

--> Here is the key question: Is someone if from a less advanced civilization (and, yes, I think there are people from less advanced civilizations than mine) then does that mean they are less civilized? I say yes. But the difference is that all humans deserve a minimum of respect, and we must give them that minimum amount of respect. If we say that someone is less civilized, we then have to turn around and show them that we respect them as humans and that their happiness is important to us. Many people do the first, do not do the second, and that is the big mistake.

Well I say the civilization a person is part of has no bearing on my judgment on that persons civility. I also stick to my conclusion that looking at people as less anything than us based on their entire society and not their individual actions is leaning toward prejudice if not prejudice in itself. And respecting people as humans while looking down on them as being less civilized sounds tough. Is it? Most humans throughout history holding such beliefs have found it so. We can see that in their actions.

"…why do we have to be so special?"

--> Because we are.

So you say... with no proof whatsoever. We're not special. We're just one more kind of highly adapted animal. Well, we're not any more special than anything else, let's put it that way. Then everything can be special and we can be special right along with them.

"These kids are made to feel "less than human" by other kids…"

--> That is the essential mistake. One person cannot be "less human" than another person. One person can be less civilized, but to say that being less civilized means less human is a mistake.

What is less civilized? Seriously, definition please. Because being of a civilization vastly different from your own with vastly different rules does not make a civilization less of anything. And people can be made to feel less than human. It's a proven fact. Another proven fact is that people can take differences and use them to convince themselves that someone else is less than human. And that's what I'd discourage.

I'd also discourage the term 'less than human', because that term puts us above the animal kingdom. We are not. We're just another part of it. And being animals, comparing someone to an animal as an insult just looses it's bite, don't it?

 

[Nick the Pilot]

Immortality Lost, you said,

"...when the chips are down, we're usually not much better than the animals we think we're so much more advanced than."

"I'd also discourage the term 'less than human', because that term puts us above the animal kingdom. We are not. We're just another part of it."

--> I guess we just have to agree to disagree on this.

"What is less civilized?"

--> Let me give you an example. I live in China, and the people here drive like maniacs -- I was truly scared the first time I got into a taxi here. Another example is how lining up for food at a fast-food restaurant here is a joke because many people here have absolutely no qualms about pushing their way right in front of you and barking out their order at the person behind the counter. (I have learned that I have to tap these people on the shoulder and then yell at them to get behind me, something I would never do where I come from.) Yes, I think that where I come from is more civilized in some ways, such as these examples.

 

[xcvbxcvb]

There is a story among certain native American circles which places white people in the role of slave to the red people. It's a part of their flood epic.

We all have things to pride ourselves in, things of which to be ashamed, in our history as humans.


Battles are won and lost, wars make for decisiveness in our laws and record.
In the past two centuries or so, along with the birth of America and Australia, we suddenly have "media publication" dripping out the walls and through the cracks, accessible by even children.

It has been highly abused by people in high places of government and finance.
I think it's time we write something fair and unbiased.

Even if it involves markers and spray paint.