More Shock Quotes, pt. 2
March 17th, 2008 by tempe
The second objection leveled against the “Shock Quotes” post was this one by Thomas Huxley:
No rational man, cognizant of the facts, believes that the average Negro is the equal, still the superior, of the white man. … It is simply incredible [to think] that … he will be able to compete successfully with his bigger-brained and smaller jawed rival, in a contest which is to be carried own by thoughts and not by bites.
This quote is from an 1865 essay entitled “Emancipation — Black and White”and later appears in Huxley’s 1871 book Lay Sermons, Addresses, and Reviews. Now granted, I don’t possess a copy of Huxley’s book (not exactly at the top of my required reading list), and I obtained the quote from a secondary source (and I have seen the quote numerous times). The objection is the uses of ellipses. Here is the quote without them:
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 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. The highest places in the hierarchy of civilisation will assuredly not be within the reach of our dusky cousins, though it is by no means necessary that they should be restricted to the lowest.
A fuller treatment of this quote can be found in here. The entry adds this little detail:
Portions of this statement have been used in arguments by creationists purporting that belief in physical evolution is supportive of racist oppressions, whereas the statements Huxley made were in fact indicative of very common racial presumptions of his time that most people (in the observable processes of cultural evolution) have since rejected, and were made (in a somewhat condescending manner) in rejection of racist and sexist oppressions.
The entry then links to an evolutionist site. I will add that I find it somewhat annoying for someone to claim that we have “evolved” culturally (and apparently morally as well) to the point that it was once permissible (at least socially) for folks we admire to have been racists, even though now it is not. Cultural subjectivism does not make for a satisfying morality.
Granted, the context of Huxley’s quote does make somewhat of a difference. He is arguing against the practice of slavery. Now, I would also note, that as honorable as his intentions were, there are a number of problems with this. For instance, what business did he, as a Brit, have imposing his own moral standards upon the citizens of another country on the other side of the world? Wouldn’t that be somehow interfering (shades of the Prime Directive!) with the “cultural evolution” of another group of citizens? But this is a fairly easy argument to side-step. It is more problematic, however, to consider that by opposing slavery, Huxley was actually contradicting his own philosophical position which he so often vehemently defended. If evolution is true, then why exactly is it wrong for a stronger human being to dominate a weaker one? Wouldn’t this just be natural selection in action? Some evolutionists obviously believed that white Europeans were superior to other races, as the quotes I posted from George Hunter’s A Civic Biology indicate:
At the present time there exist upon the earth five races or varieties of man, each very different from the other in instincts, social customs, and, to an extent, in structure. These are the Ethiopian or negro type, originating in Africa; the Malay or brown race, from the islands of the Pacific; the American Indian; the Mongolian or yellow race, including the natives of China, Japan, and the Eskimos; and finally, the highest type of all, the Caucasians, represented by the civilized white inhabitants of Europe and America.
But Huxley is opposing slavery, and he needs to be credited for that. But can he really escape the charge of racism? Is he not still saying that the black man is not the equal of the white man? The claim is that this can be demonstrated simply by comparing the sizes of craniums and mandibles. Even though there may be some general anomolies, the black man (our “cousin”, but apparently not our brother or sister) really will not be able to compete ultimately. While we might soften Huxley’s intentions a bit with this new information, it still does not seem that he can escape the charge of racism.
Not that some have not tried to be his apologist. The defense is usually not a denial that Huxley said some things that sounded awfully racist (at least to our modern ears); rather, the claim is that everyone else was pretty much a racist then, and he was more progressive (remember, we culturally evolved away from racism) than most. See this link for a rebuttal to this type of apology.
So, there you have the whole quotation posted. Judge for yourself if it is somehow more palatable now. But, wouldn’t it be better to simply admit that Huxley was wrong? We can applaud him for opposing slavery, but why can’t folks simply admit that the idea of inferior races was wrong and move on from there? Just because a man may have made some moral mistakes does not mean he was wrong about everything (though he apparently had some nasty things to say about some of the clergy of his day, but that will have to wait until another day). On the other hand, the fallout from the same philosophy that Huxley helped promote and popularize did have some devastating effects. One author has noted:
The theory of evolution became the philosophy of life for militant atheism in the 20th century. Few people realize that Hitler, in bringing about World War II, merely put into practice what he believed was human evolution. Darwin and Nietzsche were the two philosophers studied by the National Socialists in working out the philosophy set for in Hitler’s Mein Kampf. In this work Hitler asserted that men rose from animals by fighting. It was the contention of the Fuehrer that this struggle, wherein one being feeds on another and the blood of the weaker is the life of the stronger, has continued from time immemorable and must continue until the most highly advanced branch of humanity dominates the whole earth.
Now that’s a shocking quote (see here for the article containing the quote). Want a couple more? How about this:
Although it is developed in the crude English style, this [Darwin’s Origin of the Species]. is the book which contains the basis in natural history for our view.
That is from a letter written by Karl Marx to his co-author of The Communist Manifesto, Frederick Ingles. Here’s another:
The Christian Churches build upon the ignorance of men and strive to keep large portions of the people in ignorance because only in this way can the Christian Churches maintain their power. On the other hand, National Socialism is based on scientific foundations. Christianity’s immutable principles, which were laid down almost two thousand years ago, have increasingly stiffened into life-alien dogmas. National Socialism, however, if it wants to fulfill its task further, must always guide itself according to the newest data of scientific searches.
Those words come from the Nazi Martin Bormann. Do they sound somewhat familiar in our day (perhaps just plug in the word “evolution” for “National Socialism”)? This should come as little surprise, if we remember that the title of Hitler’s book Mein Kampf means “My Struggle.” Perhaps it is just a coincidence, but the complete title of Darwin’s book is On the Origin of Species by Means of Natural Selection, or the Preservation of Favoured Races in the Struggle for Life (that subtitle should be offensive in itself).
Of course, Hitler also claimed to be a Christian; but there is a considerable mound of evidence (e.g., from the Nuremberg trials) that Hitler intended to exterminate the Christian church. And, of course, there were probably multiple causes at work in influencing Hitler’s diabolical worldview. Nevertheless, it is difficult to avoid the fact that Darwinism was at the heart of Hitler’s evil, as historian Richard Weikart notes:
[Brigette] Hamann and [Ian] Kershaw both argue that Hitler had a consistent–albeit pernicious–world view. At the center of that world view was the notion that history consists of a Darwinian struggle for existence between races, and the Aryan (i.e., Germanic) race has been and still is of supreme importance as the highest race, the only race capable of creating advanced culture. For Hitler human progress depended on two factors: 1) strengthening the Aryan race through eugenics measures; and 2) winning the struggle against the non-Aryan races (necessitating a strong military). Hamann astutely observes that for Hitler, “the individual has no value other than being part of a people and a race and to help secure their survival in the battle against other peoples and races.” (p. 235)
Once again, quite a shocking quote!
Both the history of Christianity and the history of evolutionary theory contain offensive errors. Because certain members of a group were in error in dangerous ways, does not mean that the whole belief system or theory is erroneous.
I am reading a book right now called Blood and Soil. It is a history of genocide. It documents how Christians (as well as members of other religious groups and other ideologies, such as Communism practiced and genocide. According to the author the beliefs and practices that underlie modern genocide began in Sparta in ancient Greece, and then were carried on in Rome in the persecution and destruction of Carthage.
He then tracks this belief system to Spain’s genocidal actions against the Indians in the Caribbean and then South and Central America (under Catholicism) and then England’s genocidal actions against the Irish in the 1500s (under early Protestant Church of England), and then against the aboriginal inhabitants of Australia and America. In the early stages of American genocide the very Puritan Protestants do not emerge well (going into my fave early Protestant American, Roger Williams, whose theology–to me–was nutty–but whose moral instincts–to me–were fairly sound, but as I am an radical agnostic–what do I know about morality?)
The author also beats up on genocidal Buddhists as well (Japan and Burma)–who knew?
Evolutionary theory is a scientific theory, nor a moral system. The early people such as Huxley who applied it as a justification of racism were in error, just as Catholics who felt that Christianity justified the Inquisition were in error and Protestants who persecuted people they labeled as witches were in error. Neither error tells you much about the true nature of Christianity.
Thanks for your comments, Random. As always, they are welcomed and appreciated. Even though we disagree, the fact that you able to correspond in such a kind and thoughtful manner speaks well of your character.
A few things worth observing: qualifying the church of England in the1500’s as “Protestant” is a bit of a misnomer, as Henry, while he did have a bright moment or two, was little more than a Catholic thumbing his nose at Rome in his quest for a heir. Besides, those Protestants who died under Mary’s watch would disagree greatly with you! If the book you are reading does make an obvious historical distinction like this (e.g., what went on during the reigns of Edward and Elizabeth and was this different), I might read it with a grain of salt.
Likewise, appealing to the Inquisition and the Salem witch trials is often a red herring. You won’t find me defending either one, other than to say there is often great exaggeration when both are referenced. How many folks died in Salem? I think it was less that 20. And more people died on a good day in Stalinist Russia than died during the entire period of the Spanish Inquisition, if memory serves. That does make either one right, of course, but if we are wanting to compare apples with apples, one barrel has a lot more fruit in it that the other! I would recommend a chapter in Philip Sampson’s Six Modern Myths to clear up some of this misunderstanding: http://www.amazon.com/Modern-Myths-Christianity-Western-Civilization/dp/083082281X/ref=sr_1_5?ie=UTF8&s=books&qid=1206022191&sr=1-5
The book you referenced sounds interesting. And I am likewise amazed: who knew that there were genocidal Buddhists! But I think the history that is documented shows one thing upon which you and I agree: human history is a very ugly affair, and human beings are capable of doing very offensive (dare I say sinful?) acts. But, this seems to be more in accord with the Biblical account of the depravity of man, rather than the (recent) evolutionary explanation that we are actually “improving” morally. Certainly the 20th century is a testimony that the very opposite is true. The fact remains that human beings will do all sorts of things to dominate one another, and they will use whatever means is available (including such prevalent social structures as the church or communism or legalized racism) to accomplish their purposes.
The thing I’ve always tried to point you back to, though, is why these things like racism and genocide are wrong. If our ultimate purpose is to make sure our genes make it to the next generation and our ultimate destiny is to be worm food, then under what moral pretense can any of us say an act is “right” or “wrong.” We can dress it up with all sorts of language, we can shout our moral outrage, but in the end it becomes a mere illusion to make us feel better about our lives. Your moral outrage is in the end no better than mine, and neither of us would have the grounds to say that anything is moral or immoral. Jim Crow laws said that discrimination against blacks was ok and Dr. King said it was not. Who is to say either was right or wrong? The fact that you feel a certain moral outrage over some of these things (glad to see we agree about Huxley, and that you aren’t defending him as others might wish to do) is good, but such a comment assumes an objective morality in which to base your outrage. You need to account for such an objective morality, and an agnostic worldview cannot do that.
Finally, one last point needs to be made (and I’ve made it before): when critiquing two systems like we have above, we need to ask whether they are consistent with the philosophical foundations of that system. Is social Darwinism consistent with its core assumptions about the world? I would argue that it is. If we are only highly developed animals, it is difficult to defend the killing of other animals, as long as we get our genes in the next generation. But was the Spanish Inquisition, for instance, consistent with the moral precepts of Christianity. I don’t know anyone who would claim that it was, and I could probably find a whole host of Protestants who would agree with me!
Once again, thanks for commenting on my blog and thanks for the pleasant discourse.
I understand that the early C of E is probably not really Protestant. Neo-Protestant? That’s one reason Roger W became a Puritan and fled to America.
I use the word Inquisition fairly loosely (and perhaps unfairly) to represent a time when dominant Christians persecuted people they saw as heretics and outliers (including my ancestors, who were Jewish. I have said on worldmagblog that a proper aim of respectful discourse between atheists and Christians is too make each other uneasy. As with some of my other catch phrases, it is probably not the most felicitous statement; I will consider better ones.
A Christian writer whom I respect in this regard is Garry Wills. As far as I can tell, he is a sincere Christian, but he does not whitewash the more unsavory parts of Christian history.
I am quite aware that as an agnostic I do not offer an convincing foundation for a system of belief and morality. Although I joke about my “non-Church of Radical Agnosticism” (the world’s least popular religion), I am serious in not offering as a guide to anybody else.
I do try to be conscientious in not claiming that Communism or Dawkins or Hitchens or any other secular “prophets” have such a system either.
Christianity (in its various flavors) is not convincing to me, either in its arguments for its “truthiness” or its arguments based on its uneven and often violent and cruel history. Christianity is much more aggressive than I am in presenting itself as an inspiration and guide.
Many people find it so. I don’t.
It may quite well be that there is no meaning to life and no impeccable reason for not being bad.
As my granddaughter has just turned four years of age, I am not sure she is ready for me to tell her this. Her Mommy is gently undermining her belief in Santa Claus this year. I haven’t told her yet that I shoot bunnies with my air rifle.
Neo? Look up your prefixes!
Just kidding. Actually, I probably wouldn’t object to “proto-protestant.” Edward was a good king, and Thomas Cranmer made some good reforms. But Henry and Mary were truly sticks in the proverbial mud.
Once again, I appreciate your comments and we probably actually agree on a great deal (such as you criticisms of the “new atheists”, and, to a point, even the more notorious aspects of Christendom). I am truly sorry that many of your ancestors were oppressed in such a way, but the Inquisition was a rather nasty business and I have no problems with you critiquing it — as long as you understand that it is not representative of Biblical Christianity.
Arguing “evidences” for God is sometimes beneficial, but it often leads to intellectual dead ends. I prefer the Transcendental Argument for the existence of God, and I would be more than happy to discuss that with you sometime, albeit in a different forum (or perhaps I will make a general post and you can comment, if you are so inclined). FWIW, I greatly respect your intellectual prowess, your wit, and your willingness to examine the issues without resorting to screaming and insulting the other side (see those guys you referenced above).
See, we even agree on the Santa Claus thing. If we had kids, I would probably talk to them about Santa, but I wouldn’t pretend he actually really existed (I might relate him to Mickey Mouse or Batman or something like that). OTOH, if you told her the true story about St. Nicholas, that would be beneficial. He was a pretty good guy, and even orthodox! I might hold off on the bunny thing though; Easter’s coming up and you don’t want her to get the wrong idea!