Charles Darwin and the Existence of Racism
By Adrian Chan-Wyles PhD
‘If we consider all the species of man forming a single species, his range is enormous; but some separate races, as the Americans and Polynesians, have very wide ranges. It is a well-known law that widely-ranging species are much more variable than species with restricted ranges; and the variability of man may with more truth be compared with that of widely-ranging species, than with that of domesticated animals.’
Charles Darwin: The Descent of Man – Chapter II
Charles Darwin: The Descent of Man – Chapter II
Charles Darwin’s theory of evolution through natural selection contains as its base, the analytical tools and observational detail that not only uproot the racist notions common to the Victorian Age within Britain within which Darwin lived, but when fully developed to the full extent of its academic vigour, has the potential to finish the ideology of racism altogether as being not only unscientific, but also illogical and the product of nonsensical superstition. Modern genetic research confirms that there is only one human species (as Darwin suspected above) and that as a species it has diversified into various ethnic groups, with many possessing distinct languages, culture, religions and even sciences. This scientific understanding was confirmed following the highly destructive and racially motivated battles of WWII, which saw the USSR, USA and Western Europe fight the fascist forces of Nazi Germany, Fascist Italy, imperial Japan and their allies. Millions were killed in battle or extermination camps in attempts to prove the superiority of the ‘German’, ‘Italian’ or ‘Japanese’ so-called races over the ethnic groups that disagreed with race as a marker of scientific knowledge. In 1950 this prompted the United Nations Educational, Scientific and Cultural Organization (UNESCO) to issue a statement confirming that all humans belong to the same species and that “race” is not a biological reality but a myth. This ‘scientific’ pronouncement was really a product of the logical development of evolutionary theory, and the rational consideration of all the findings available at that time. This being the case it is a curious fact in and of itself that Charles Darwin – the progenitor of a modern evolutionary theory that concludes that ‘race’ is a myth and is unscientific – is routinely referred to as a ‘racist’, and his evolutionary theory the product of white middle class privilege. The problem stems from the fact that Darwin’s great idea (which put an end to religionist myths) developed into such a vast body of knowledge that its implications soon transcended the single brain that gave rise to it. In this sense Darwin was certainly NOT a racist as his theory is the antithesis of all racial thought disguised as science up until the time of its conception. Where the problems begin is in the language Darwin uses to express a) his theory, and b) the implications of that theory. Modern genetic theory has proven Darwin correct about there being a single human species, and his above quote (with explanation and qualification) could be taught in any college or university today without any hint of racism. However, Darwin used the language of his time to convey concepts that ultimately had the power to transcend the limited (and bias) language of their first expression. Using the Victorian language of his day, Charles Darwin sometimes expressed non-racial concepts in a racialist manner. What this means is that Charles Darwin, although definitely NOT a scientific racist, unfortunately occasionally expressed himself in culturally racist terms. This was the language of imperialist Britain that had conquered large sections of the world and subjected vast populations to Eurocentric racism and oppression, aided and abetted by a Christian church that had ‘changed’ the colour of the Virgin Mary from ‘Black’ to ‘White’, and the ethnicity of the Son of God – Jesus Christ – from that of a Middle Eastern Jew to that of a middle class Western European with blonde hair and blue eyes.
Darwin’s pivotal and theoretically grounding-breaking work is considered to be his ‘On the Origin of Species By Means of Natural Selection or The Preservation of Favoured Races in the Struggle for Life’, published in 1859. This book does not mention human-beings, but establishes through the presentation of ample evidence, the scientific case for the evolution of plants and animals. This book took decades to complete and involved Darwin not only travelling around the world to personally experience and categorise the diversity of flora and fauna, but also in experts from various other branches of fledgling scientific investigation sharing their research with him. This collection of data only served to support and reinforce Darwin’s central idea that everything on earth had ‘evolved’ over time into its present state, or had died-out at some point in the past, and never appeared to offer any serious theoretical contradiction or methodological challenge. Of course as Darwin’s work clashed with the ‘creationist’ theology of the established church, it is from the perspective of religion that his theory of evolution has attracted an ongoing and at times vicious (but primarily unscientific) criticism. Although Darwin’s theory is still being proven correct as more and more sophisticated scientific evidence is being gathered, the idea that populations have ‘evolved’ or ‘changed’ overtime as a matter of adaptation to the natural environment, is vehemently resisted by those who believe that life suddenly ‘appeared’ on earth as if out of thin-air, being inspired into existence by the will of a divine-entity. Perhaps one of the better sweeping criticisms of evolutionary theory as it was presented in the late 20th century is that of Richard Milton’s 1992 book entitled ‘Facts of Life: Shattering the Myth of Darwinism’. Milton actually states that he believes that evolution is real and has occurred, but he takes exception with a number of unproven assertions presented in the post-WWII ‘synthetic’ version of the theory that are presented in schools and colleges as ‘facts’, when in fact they are merely unproven speculation. Although religionists manage to retain a more or less intense hostile fire against evolutionary theory from one generation to the next, there has also been much internecine conflict from those academics who accept Darwin’s theory and argue over how it is to be presented to the world. This has seen a political division into the two camps of left and right, with Stephen Jay Gould perhaps being one of the best representatives of the left, and Richard Dawkins of the right. These two camps attack one another primarily through research, category and methodological implications, and it is interesting to note that the work of Richard Dawkins (which is always under attack from religionists) has also been academically attacked by a prominent representative of British Darwinian academia. On the 150th anniversary of the publishing of Darwin’s ‘On the Origin of Species’ in the UK, Dr Fern Elson-Baker – who worked on the Darwin Now international project of the British Council, and is an acknowledged academic expert of the history and philosophy of evolutionary theory published her book entitled ‘The Selfish Genius – How Richard Dawkins Rewrote Darwin’s Legacy’. In Dr Elson-Baker’s convincing work, she presents compelling evidence that Dawkins’ interpretation of evolutionary theory is ‘academically’ flawed and therefore misrepresents Darwin’s original theory, taking it into an ideologically motivated, intellectual cul-de-sac.
By contrast to the obvious theoretical strength shown in depth by Darwin’s ‘On the Origins of Species’, his 1871 book entitled ‘The Descent of Man, and Selection in Relation to Sex’, appears to be positively rushed. There is a sense of an almost bipolar approach to the research. On the one hand Darwin gives voice to an evolutionary theory which transcends the socio-economic and historical time period within which he lives (clearly stating that closed categories of race DO NOT exist), whilst on the other the text is peppered with statements expressed in a language that is very much familiar to the times within which he existed, and which can be rightly described as being of a casually racist nature. Darwin continuously refers to humanity as a single species – that is correct and non-racial – and then spoils the advantage he has developed by his insistence that humanity should be divided into the ‘White’ and ‘civilised’ race, juxtaposed with the ‘Black’, ‘Asian’, ‘Aboriginal’ and ‘Polynesian’ races which Darwin deem to be ‘savage’ and ‘barbaric’. The racial dichotomy is obvious and this fact alone does nothing to convey his otherwise scientific and non-racial theory of evolution to non-Europeans who have been the victims of Eurocentric racist attitudes for centuries. It is an odd truth that in The Descent of Man Darwin both transcends racism through scientific analysis, whilst confirming the practice of cultural racism within European society. More than this, however, but Darwin does not seem to comprehend the sheer theoretical scope of the theory that his intellect has unleashed upon the world. How can the narrative of cultural racism be both proven logically wrong (i.e. ‘unscientific’), and yet at the same time still be apparently academically affirmed through its usage? This paradox explains why in popular debate the work of Charles Darwin is often considered ‘racist’, particularly as it led to the obviously racist ideology of ‘Social Darwinism’ which sort to confirm British racial supremacy throughout its worldwide empire. It has to be stated, however, that Darwin himself did not support institutional racism and often spoke-out against it. The pseudoscience of Social Darwinism is the product of what other people did with Darwin’s theory, and had nothing to do with Darwin’s ‘scientific’ conclusions. It is these facts and others like them of the obvious liberal direction which Darwin thought that make his apparent racial statements in The Descent of Man to be even more perplexing. One such example (which is shocking to modern eyes) is as follows:
Darwin’s pivotal and theoretically grounding-breaking work is considered to be his ‘On the Origin of Species By Means of Natural Selection or The Preservation of Favoured Races in the Struggle for Life’, published in 1859. This book does not mention human-beings, but establishes through the presentation of ample evidence, the scientific case for the evolution of plants and animals. This book took decades to complete and involved Darwin not only travelling around the world to personally experience and categorise the diversity of flora and fauna, but also in experts from various other branches of fledgling scientific investigation sharing their research with him. This collection of data only served to support and reinforce Darwin’s central idea that everything on earth had ‘evolved’ over time into its present state, or had died-out at some point in the past, and never appeared to offer any serious theoretical contradiction or methodological challenge. Of course as Darwin’s work clashed with the ‘creationist’ theology of the established church, it is from the perspective of religion that his theory of evolution has attracted an ongoing and at times vicious (but primarily unscientific) criticism. Although Darwin’s theory is still being proven correct as more and more sophisticated scientific evidence is being gathered, the idea that populations have ‘evolved’ or ‘changed’ overtime as a matter of adaptation to the natural environment, is vehemently resisted by those who believe that life suddenly ‘appeared’ on earth as if out of thin-air, being inspired into existence by the will of a divine-entity. Perhaps one of the better sweeping criticisms of evolutionary theory as it was presented in the late 20th century is that of Richard Milton’s 1992 book entitled ‘Facts of Life: Shattering the Myth of Darwinism’. Milton actually states that he believes that evolution is real and has occurred, but he takes exception with a number of unproven assertions presented in the post-WWII ‘synthetic’ version of the theory that are presented in schools and colleges as ‘facts’, when in fact they are merely unproven speculation. Although religionists manage to retain a more or less intense hostile fire against evolutionary theory from one generation to the next, there has also been much internecine conflict from those academics who accept Darwin’s theory and argue over how it is to be presented to the world. This has seen a political division into the two camps of left and right, with Stephen Jay Gould perhaps being one of the best representatives of the left, and Richard Dawkins of the right. These two camps attack one another primarily through research, category and methodological implications, and it is interesting to note that the work of Richard Dawkins (which is always under attack from religionists) has also been academically attacked by a prominent representative of British Darwinian academia. On the 150th anniversary of the publishing of Darwin’s ‘On the Origin of Species’ in the UK, Dr Fern Elson-Baker – who worked on the Darwin Now international project of the British Council, and is an acknowledged academic expert of the history and philosophy of evolutionary theory published her book entitled ‘The Selfish Genius – How Richard Dawkins Rewrote Darwin’s Legacy’. In Dr Elson-Baker’s convincing work, she presents compelling evidence that Dawkins’ interpretation of evolutionary theory is ‘academically’ flawed and therefore misrepresents Darwin’s original theory, taking it into an ideologically motivated, intellectual cul-de-sac.
By contrast to the obvious theoretical strength shown in depth by Darwin’s ‘On the Origins of Species’, his 1871 book entitled ‘The Descent of Man, and Selection in Relation to Sex’, appears to be positively rushed. There is a sense of an almost bipolar approach to the research. On the one hand Darwin gives voice to an evolutionary theory which transcends the socio-economic and historical time period within which he lives (clearly stating that closed categories of race DO NOT exist), whilst on the other the text is peppered with statements expressed in a language that is very much familiar to the times within which he existed, and which can be rightly described as being of a casually racist nature. Darwin continuously refers to humanity as a single species – that is correct and non-racial – and then spoils the advantage he has developed by his insistence that humanity should be divided into the ‘White’ and ‘civilised’ race, juxtaposed with the ‘Black’, ‘Asian’, ‘Aboriginal’ and ‘Polynesian’ races which Darwin deem to be ‘savage’ and ‘barbaric’. The racial dichotomy is obvious and this fact alone does nothing to convey his otherwise scientific and non-racial theory of evolution to non-Europeans who have been the victims of Eurocentric racist attitudes for centuries. It is an odd truth that in The Descent of Man Darwin both transcends racism through scientific analysis, whilst confirming the practice of cultural racism within European society. More than this, however, but Darwin does not seem to comprehend the sheer theoretical scope of the theory that his intellect has unleashed upon the world. How can the narrative of cultural racism be both proven logically wrong (i.e. ‘unscientific’), and yet at the same time still be apparently academically affirmed through its usage? This paradox explains why in popular debate the work of Charles Darwin is often considered ‘racist’, particularly as it led to the obviously racist ideology of ‘Social Darwinism’ which sort to confirm British racial supremacy throughout its worldwide empire. It has to be stated, however, that Darwin himself did not support institutional racism and often spoke-out against it. The pseudoscience of Social Darwinism is the product of what other people did with Darwin’s theory, and had nothing to do with Darwin’s ‘scientific’ conclusions. It is these facts and others like them of the obvious liberal direction which Darwin thought that make his apparent racial statements in The Descent of Man to be even more perplexing. One such example (which is shocking to modern eyes) is as follows:
‘The inability to move the ears in man and several apes is, however, partly compensated by the freedom with which they can move the head in a horizontal plane, so as to catch sounds from all directions. It has been asserted that the ears of man alone possesses a lobule; but “a rudiment of it is found in the gorilla”; and, as I hear from Prof. Preyer, it is not rarely absent in the negro.’
Charles Darwin: The Descent of Man – Chapter II
Charles Darwin: The Descent of Man – Chapter II
Darwin, whilst cogently discussing the design and shape of the human ear, assuming that a vaguely protruding (but obvious) element in its design alludes to an earlier time in evolutionary history when human ancestors may have possessed ‘pointed’ ears, draws a distinction firstly between ‘man’ with gorillas, and then between ‘man’ and the ‘negro’. It may be deduced from this statement that Darwin did not view African people as being fully human, but more akin to gorillas. This clearly expresses the racist tendency prevalent at the time to separate humanity into the dichotomy of the ‘White’ civilised race and the ‘uncivilised’ non-white races. In the same chapter Darwin discusses the wisdom teeth and explains that the Caucasian jaw is shorter because Caucasian people live a more civilised lifestyle than their African counter-parts whose jaws are longer due to their uncivilised existence. Admittedly in many of these incidences of obvious racist explanation, Darwin is quoting the work of his fellow academics and apparently taking research at face-value. This is demonstrative of how this book seems to be hastily compiled, as Darwin is not in many incidents expressing his own considered opinion, as is the case throughout ‘On the Origin of Species’. This strongly demonstrates the unquestioned assumption and strength of the institutional racism that existed at the time in the UK. Darwin does make use of this racist research presumably because there was simply no other work available to quote that he knew about at the time. Obviously Darwin’s central premise that there is no such thing as different and distinct ‘races’ can be interpreted as a type of ‘anti-racist’ science that had to be presented not in a cultural vacuum free of the realities of the day, but placed exactly within the midst of those already prevailing conditions. This seems all the more likely as Darwin explains that on his voyage aboard the HMS Beagle (1831-36) he encountered people he named as ‘Fuegians’ (i.e. the indigenous inhabitants of Tierra del Fuego in South America) whom he describes as being general representatives of the lower barbarians, but he states that he was surprised to learn that after spending time in the UK they had learned to speak English, and think and behave as if they were British. This led Darwin to state that the current and apparent supremacy or subordination of various groups of human-beings is entirely dependent upon environment, conditioning and experience, and could theoretically change at any given moment in history to its opposite manifestation (i.e. a so-called ‘savage’ could become ‘civilised’ and vice versa):
‘Differences of this kind between the highest men of the highest races and lowest savages, are connected by finer gradations. Therefore it is possible that they might pass and be developed into each other.’
Charles Darwin: The Descent of Man – Chapter III
Charles Darwin: The Descent of Man – Chapter III
The very idea of dividing the world into ‘civilised’ and ‘savage’ is the epitome of racialised thinking. The point in this error is that there are just as many individuals in Europe who brutalise their fellow man from time to time as there are in any other ethnic group around the world. It is also true that India, China and Africa (and other ethnic groups) possessed advanced civilisations thousands of years ago when the European ancestors were existing at very low levels of cultural and technological development. Everything Darwin and his society held to be ‘civilised’ and which they exclusively ascribed to themselves, were in fact achieved thousands of years ago by the very same people deemed ‘savages’ in Darwin’s assessment. It must also be noted that the people Darwin termed as ‘savages’ and ‘barbarians’ are referred to today as ‘indigenous’ or ‘native’ populations possessing valuable cultures that are unique and perfectly adapted to their respective environments. This analysis demonstrates how Darwin was simultaneously presenting a ground-breaking theory that possessed the intellectual power to eventually uproot racism, whilst simultaneously conveying a British imperialism that although apparently secular in fashion, actually presented a distorting ‘specialness’ ascribed to White Europeans that mimics the Judeo-Christian theology of a ‘chosen’ people. Darwin’s thinking here is distorted by theology, but it is the distortion generally accepted as a ‘fact’ by the society within which he lived, and to Darwin’s credit, from time to time throughout his writings he admits his mistakes and explains his errors, although he never appeared to be overly bothered by the allegation of racism because as a middle class liberal he probably considered himself highly moral and compassionate by nature, an attitude reflected by his quite natural opposition to the Trans-Atlantic Slave Trade.
Darwin was a ‘White’ middle class English gentleman who was very much the product of his time in as much as the UK society within which he was born propagated a racist myth as fact, and this can be seen in his The Descent of Man. Darwin utilises racist metaphors and allegories to express what he perceives to be a hierarchy of ‘races’ with the White Europeans being at its summit, Chinese and Asians in its middle, and Aborigines and Black people at its base. This is despite the fact that Darwin saw no scientific evidence for ‘races’ to exist as separate and distinct categories. Darwin is therefore in the unusual position of scientifically refuting the very racial mythology he sometimes perpetuates through his work. Although an obviously very caring person when it came to the consideration of animals and animal welfare, he continuously refers to people suffering the disability of Microcephalus (where the growth of the cranial cavity is impeded) as ‘idiots’ throughout The Descent of Man. He erroneously presents these unfortunate modern humans as throw-backs to earlier stages of human evolutionary existence, and ascribes to them the status of a kind of human with animal tendencies. His description of the difficulties these people face every day of their lives is presented as an outrageous lack of common decency and nowhere in the entire book is any other disability mentioned. For Darwin disability is regressive and its sufferers are to be consigned to the category of ‘uselessness’. When the full import of Darwin’s evolutionary theory is ignored in favour of Darwin’s own Victorian Era-inspired viewpoints regarding race and disability, it is easy to understand how the fascistic and highly destructive pseudoscience of Social Darwinism came into being, and how rightwing political regimes utilised this thinking to ‘rid’ their societies of those human beings they deemed ‘unworthy’ of life. Although Darwin might well have been personally shocked to have observed this development, nevertheless, the essence of it can be found in the type of discriminatory language he chose to use – a descriptive language that was very much part and parcel of middle class existence in the UK at the time, and it must be pointed-out that although this analysis goes someway to ‘explaining’ the racism and discrimination that exists within Darwin’s The Descent of Man, it is not intended in any way to justify it, or act as a means of apology for Darwin or placate the obvious insult such descriptions convey. Black, Asian Chinese and Native Peoples (i.e. non-European) ARE NOT racially inferior, and their respective cultures DO NOT represent backward portrayals of human development in the distant past. People with disabilities ARE NOT animals, and the problems they face every day are NOT OFFENSIVE to contemporary society. Darwin possessed the intellectual capacity to perceive the patterns in nature that suggested that evolution has occurred, and this understanding even led to him abandoning conventional religion because its theology was not scientifically correct. In his personal life he suffered terribly from poor health, and as he was developing his theory, he had clashes of consciousness about whether he should abandon Christianity in favour of science or not. This problem was compounded by the fact that his wife was deeply religious, and that his favourite daughter tragically died of illness when young. When he did publish his theory (which put an end to any serious consideration that religiously inspired theology was in any way ‘scientific’ in nature) he was attacked in the British Press from numerous directions. It may be correctly assumed that Darwin’s own culturally conditioned opinions were rendered redundant by the sheer scope and implication of his own evolutionary theory – an evolutionary theory that I am using now in its developed form to criticise Darwin’s mode of expression. This is an attack upon perceived racism and is not intended as an attack upon Darwin himself. In this regard I would like to encourage people of any and all ethnic and cultural backgrounds to read Darwin’s ground-breaking scientific work and to see beyond the unfortunate and culturally conditioned racialised language that was prevalent at the time. Furthermore, I believe Darwin would have approved of such an approach as it progresses science to new levels of understanding and awareness of reality. Others should be encouraged to criticise the modes of Darwin’s expressions that run counter to the truth of his theory, and thereby develop it to its fullest extent. This is important as Darwin’s evolutionary theory has the power to permanently put an end to ignorance of racism and not perpetuate it.
©opyright: Adrian Chan-Wyles (ShiDaDao) 2015.
Darwin was a ‘White’ middle class English gentleman who was very much the product of his time in as much as the UK society within which he was born propagated a racist myth as fact, and this can be seen in his The Descent of Man. Darwin utilises racist metaphors and allegories to express what he perceives to be a hierarchy of ‘races’ with the White Europeans being at its summit, Chinese and Asians in its middle, and Aborigines and Black people at its base. This is despite the fact that Darwin saw no scientific evidence for ‘races’ to exist as separate and distinct categories. Darwin is therefore in the unusual position of scientifically refuting the very racial mythology he sometimes perpetuates through his work. Although an obviously very caring person when it came to the consideration of animals and animal welfare, he continuously refers to people suffering the disability of Microcephalus (where the growth of the cranial cavity is impeded) as ‘idiots’ throughout The Descent of Man. He erroneously presents these unfortunate modern humans as throw-backs to earlier stages of human evolutionary existence, and ascribes to them the status of a kind of human with animal tendencies. His description of the difficulties these people face every day of their lives is presented as an outrageous lack of common decency and nowhere in the entire book is any other disability mentioned. For Darwin disability is regressive and its sufferers are to be consigned to the category of ‘uselessness’. When the full import of Darwin’s evolutionary theory is ignored in favour of Darwin’s own Victorian Era-inspired viewpoints regarding race and disability, it is easy to understand how the fascistic and highly destructive pseudoscience of Social Darwinism came into being, and how rightwing political regimes utilised this thinking to ‘rid’ their societies of those human beings they deemed ‘unworthy’ of life. Although Darwin might well have been personally shocked to have observed this development, nevertheless, the essence of it can be found in the type of discriminatory language he chose to use – a descriptive language that was very much part and parcel of middle class existence in the UK at the time, and it must be pointed-out that although this analysis goes someway to ‘explaining’ the racism and discrimination that exists within Darwin’s The Descent of Man, it is not intended in any way to justify it, or act as a means of apology for Darwin or placate the obvious insult such descriptions convey. Black, Asian Chinese and Native Peoples (i.e. non-European) ARE NOT racially inferior, and their respective cultures DO NOT represent backward portrayals of human development in the distant past. People with disabilities ARE NOT animals, and the problems they face every day are NOT OFFENSIVE to contemporary society. Darwin possessed the intellectual capacity to perceive the patterns in nature that suggested that evolution has occurred, and this understanding even led to him abandoning conventional religion because its theology was not scientifically correct. In his personal life he suffered terribly from poor health, and as he was developing his theory, he had clashes of consciousness about whether he should abandon Christianity in favour of science or not. This problem was compounded by the fact that his wife was deeply religious, and that his favourite daughter tragically died of illness when young. When he did publish his theory (which put an end to any serious consideration that religiously inspired theology was in any way ‘scientific’ in nature) he was attacked in the British Press from numerous directions. It may be correctly assumed that Darwin’s own culturally conditioned opinions were rendered redundant by the sheer scope and implication of his own evolutionary theory – an evolutionary theory that I am using now in its developed form to criticise Darwin’s mode of expression. This is an attack upon perceived racism and is not intended as an attack upon Darwin himself. In this regard I would like to encourage people of any and all ethnic and cultural backgrounds to read Darwin’s ground-breaking scientific work and to see beyond the unfortunate and culturally conditioned racialised language that was prevalent at the time. Furthermore, I believe Darwin would have approved of such an approach as it progresses science to new levels of understanding and awareness of reality. Others should be encouraged to criticise the modes of Darwin’s expressions that run counter to the truth of his theory, and thereby develop it to its fullest extent. This is important as Darwin’s evolutionary theory has the power to permanently put an end to ignorance of racism and not perpetuate it.
©opyright: Adrian Chan-Wyles (ShiDaDao) 2015.