i don't imagine i'll need to put it down.
what's the point? look at bowtie's post. racists, xenophobes, haters, always try to prop up their bs with impressive sounding 'evidence.' what are we debating, anyway? that evolution is inherently racist? does the fact that kkk and others use/d religion to support their agendas of hate mean religion is inherently racist? if so, you win.
i agree with that statement. my response to the previous quote applies here also.
.
"As Koster notes about Darwin's view on race, he:
'never considered "the less civilized races" to be authentically human. For all his decent hatred of slavery, his writings reek with all kinds of contempt for "primitive" people. Racism was culturally conditioned into educated Victorians by such "scientific" parlor tricks as Morton's measuring of brainpans with BB shot to prove that Africans and Indians had small brains, and hence, had deficient minds and intellects. Meeting the simple Indians of Tierra del Fuego, Darwin wrote: "I could not have believed how wide was the difference between savage and civilized man; it is greater than between a wild and domesticated animal . . . Viewing such a man, one can hardly make oneself believe that they are fellow creatures and inhabitants of the same world."44
Darwin's belief that some races (such as blacks) were inferior to others became so widely accepted that, as Haller concluded: 'the subject of race inferiority was beyond critical reach in the late nineteenth century.45 Although Darwin opposed all forms of slavery, he did conclude that one of the strongest evidences for evolution was the existence of living 'primitive races' which he believed were evolutionarily between the 'civilized races of man' and the gorilla:"
darwin fixation again. who cares? are thomas jefferson's ideas all nullified bc he owned slaves.
absolutely. generally speaking, most everyone in the world is inferior to certain scandinavian populations when it comes to brute strength, inferior to certain african populations when it comes to sheer speed and certain other african populations when it comes to distance running, inferior to certain sherpa populations when it comes to high altitude endurance. i'm not convinced there are any cognitive diffences independent of cultural differences, or, for that matter, that anyone even has a satisfactory definition of intelligence, iq, g, or whatever you want. obviously, this kind of operational definition is the first step toward measuring intelligence and mapping that across races, which is also a hard to define concept. a good proportion of cognitive scientists will tell you 'intelligence' is an umbrella term describing not a general faculty, but a number of more specific cognitive proficiencies. but more importantly, what if there is a race difference in 'intelligence'? is an autistic individual 'inferior' (in the general sense in which you seem to use it) to a nobel laureate? people can be inferior or superior in certain areas, but i tend to agree with the general moralistic observation that people are equally precious. you can cite as many evolutionists who were also racists as you like; there are far more racist religious zealots, which brings to mind a certain idiom about stones, houses, and glass.
