Stupidity has no age and no era
Created | Updated Feb 18, 2009
Social Darwinism is a bugbear of those who believe that secular humanism is a really bad thing.
By their very nature, the phrases are flawed. Secular humanism suggests that there is a nonsecular version. If you find it, let me know. Social Darwinism suggests that there is an anti-social version.
The very concept of "Darwinism" is flawed. If there should be anything of the sort, it should be "Huxleyism". Charles Darwin was not a social scientist nor even an activist. He was a researcher, an observer. And he should not be associated with Charley Marx, who was merely a lazy plagiarist. Communism doesn't require a philosophy. It has the Catholic and the Orthodox churches to provide that. Socialism doesn't require a philosophy, it has the Reformation to provide that.
Social engineering doesn't need real scientists. It needs dilettantes and essayists. Eugenics didn't need real scientists. All it required was some idiots with more power and money than they knew what to do with and a little land to play with. It doesn't matter what race people are or what colour or what what what... What matters is what is between the ears. Stupid white people are no better than stupid people of any other race. South Africa proved that.
Religions and nationalists have been trying to wipe out their genetic and factional enemies for millenia. Humans don't really need an excuse to kill, but it makes them feel better.
Social engineering and "Social Darwinism", as well as eugenics, have had many vocal and active proponents who believed they were doing God's will. Many of them were purported Christians who thought they were actually doing some good. Hitler was a plagiarist, too. He didn't have a single original thought. And he couldn't have gotten anywhere without a few people who agreed with him, including peers and princes and rich industrialists.
Now there are those who would have us believe that the evils of the last century pretty much sprung from the earth on the fin de sicle. A simple glance at an earnest history text will show the roots of those despicable acts growing deep into the thirteenth century. The rotten state of the the hereditary monarchies during the late nineteenth century didn't hurt, either. Nor did the moribund nature of the ancient faiths. Kemal Ataturk, for all his sins, showed leadership and a willingness to make a difference while other so-called leaders sat on their hands and waited for progress to go away.