Races as Species
According to taxonomists, species are defined as a class of individuals reproductively isolated from other classes. Therefore, Darwin was correct in analyzing whether or not two races can interbreed. However, the data that supports that different races cannot reproduce to form fertile offspring is seriously flawed. As a scientist analyzing data, Darwin should have asserted the presence of confounding variables, such as there might not be any offspring of Native Americans and Aborigines because they are geographically isolated not because they are different species. He does acknowledge this point and mentions it; however, it seems obvious that different races CAN reproduce fertile offspring. Examples at the time were the offspring from European explorers and the natives of different parts of the world. When Europe was busy colonizing the world there had to be some reproduction occurring between the European settlers and the natives of the area, it would have been easy to study if the offspring of such interactions were fertile just by observation.
I don’t understand how Darwin had any substantial, scientific, evidence that different races, “differed somewhat in bodily constitution and mental disposition.” I mean bodily constitution is observable in hair type, skin color, facial features, height, etc. However, what proof did he have that the races varied in mental disposition? Any experiment showing that one race is mentally inferior to another must have been seriously flawed by confounding variables. If a European has knowledge of mathematics, music, art, philosophy, or whatever else Darwin considers to be a “high mental disposition”; it does not mean that tribes in South America or Africa have a lesser mental disposition just because they do not have knowledge of such things. If an infant from a any race that is considered to have a “lesser mental disposition” was raised in the same environment and given the same opportunities to acquire knowledge about mathematics, music, art, etc. as an infant of a “higher mental disposition” race there would be no difference in mental disposition. The apparent difference in mental disposition is really a difference in cultures, not in mental ability. As a scientist, Darwin should consider confounding variables and not be so quick to assume that some races have higher mental dispositions than other races. I think that his comments are skewed by a prejudice society, and not supported by scientific data. There are probably other scientists who have skewed data to fit outcomes they have desired or interpreted data in an unusual and erroneous way under the pressure of society.
I don’t understand how Darwin had any substantial, scientific, evidence that different races, “differed somewhat in bodily constitution and mental disposition.” I mean bodily constitution is observable in hair type, skin color, facial features, height, etc. However, what proof did he have that the races varied in mental disposition? Any experiment showing that one race is mentally inferior to another must have been seriously flawed by confounding variables. If a European has knowledge of mathematics, music, art, philosophy, or whatever else Darwin considers to be a “high mental disposition”; it does not mean that tribes in South America or Africa have a lesser mental disposition just because they do not have knowledge of such things. If an infant from a any race that is considered to have a “lesser mental disposition” was raised in the same environment and given the same opportunities to acquire knowledge about mathematics, music, art, etc. as an infant of a “higher mental disposition” race there would be no difference in mental disposition. The apparent difference in mental disposition is really a difference in cultures, not in mental ability. As a scientist, Darwin should consider confounding variables and not be so quick to assume that some races have higher mental dispositions than other races. I think that his comments are skewed by a prejudice society, and not supported by scientific data. There are probably other scientists who have skewed data to fit outcomes they have desired or interpreted data in an unusual and erroneous way under the pressure of society.
posted by Chris Rowland at 9:51 PM
2 Comments:
Chris, I agree with you but feel that you are a little strong in your criticism of Darwin. The stance he takes is one of dismissing the ideas that mixed race individuals are not fertile. He certainly lived during an era of rampant prejudice, but his conclusions are far more reasonable than most of his peers. Furthermore, most of the data we have today simply did not exist back then, and was impossible for Darwin to observe. In addition, two species can be able to breed but their habits lead them not to which is why distance can be a factor in two distinct species groups.
I think that Caleb makes a very good point here, I'm also a little confused on why Darwin is being judged so harshly. In the end he came to the correct conclusion, even though there was data from apparently respected sources that backed the idea of races as separate species. He was only being a good scientists in considering all the different sides of the argument, and it is hard to fault the careful rationality with which he considered each set of data.
Post a Comment
<< Home