Darwin states in his own “Introduction” his reason for writing Descent:  “The sole object of this work is to consider, firstly, whether man, like every other species, is descended from some pre-existing form; secondly, the manner of his development; and thirdly, the value of the differences between the so-called races of man.”  Darwin continues, “…As I shall confine myself to these points, it will not be necessary to describe in detail the differences between the several races [of man] – an enormous subject which has been fully discussed in many valuable works” (p.2).

From the start (of Descent) it is clear that Darwin viewed these racial differences of man as profoundly dramatic.  He, in fact, states (still in his “Introduction”) that the lower forms of man differ less from the “anthropomorphous apes” than do these same apes from the lower forms of their own species (p.2).   

In a work as historically significant as Descent, I believe it is important that every nuance of Darwin’s words be weighed.  For that reason, it is particularly significant that Darwin sensed the need to qualify the “races of man” (as he understood them) by referring to them as “so-called” (noted above in his “Introduction”).   The reason for his so doing is simple – he viewed some of the “races of man” as something quite different from man, or at least from “civilized man” (the term used by Darwin to designate primarily white Europeans).  He writes about this distinction later in Descent:  “In a series of forms graduating insensibly from some ape-like creature to man as he now exists, it would be impossible to fix on any definite point when the term 'man' ought to be used.  But this is a matter of very little importance.  So again, it is almost a matter of indifference whether the so-called races of man are thus designated, or are ranked as [a separate] species or sub-species…” (p.188).

Darwin, in fact, goes to great length evaluating the pros and cons of viewing some of the  races of man as separate species, specifically citing the significant differences between Negroes and European white men to make his argument.  He establishes three criteria, any one of which (Darwin believed), if sufficiently weighty, could provide strong enough argument to make such a distinction: 

• If a race has “remained distinct for a long period,” it could be regarded as a separate species. 

• If there exists “...Even a slight degree of sterility between any two forms when first crossed, or in their offspring, [it would be] generally considered as a decisive test of their specific distinctness,” and therefore could provide adequate evidence for regarding those forms as separate species.

• If a form exhibits “continued persistence without blending within the same area, [this too] is usually accepted as sufficient evidence [for that race to be regarded as a separate species]” (p.173). 

Regarding the above, and using his “nice powers of discrimination” (p.173), Darwin writes that even though “…the most distinct races of man are much more like each other in form than would at first be supposed; certain Negro tribes must be excepted…”   Darwin proceeds to list some of the attributes of the Negro that would support the argument for the Negro representing a separate species of man. 

The argument that Negroes do represent a separate species of man, Darwin suggests, is greatly strengthened by the fact that "...negroes, apparently identical with existing negroes, had lived at least 4000 years ago” (p.175); thereby satisfying the first criteria stated above.   Darwin points out that this argument would be further supported by the fact that the Negro race is “...distributed over the world in the same zoological provinces, as those inhabited by undoubtedly distinct species and genera of mammals” (p.175).  Darwin continues that "... It should be observed that the amount of difference between the mammals of the several zoological provinces does not correspond with the degree of separation between the latter; so that it can hardly be considered as an anomaly that the Negro differs more, and the American much less from the other races of man, than do the mammals of the African and American continents from the mammals of the other provinces” (p.176).    

Darwin further argues that even the bugs (parasites) that attach themselves to humans provide evidence to support Negroes being of a different species.  Darwin writes that the Pediculi or lice collected in the various countries from various races of man differed in color and structure; and that the parasites removed from Negroes would not survive on a European man for more than three or four days (p.176).  “With insects slight structural differences, if constant, are generally esteemed of specific value:  and the fact of the races of man being infested by parasites, which appear to be specifically distinct, might fairly be urged as an argument that the races themselves ought to be classed as distinct species” (p.177).  

Regarding the relative sterility of the offspring resulting from the union of a Negro and a European white as evidence of separate species status, Darwin suggests that while there is no sound evidence that such a marriage results in diminished reproductive capabilities, the “phenomenon” that the offspring of such a union are sickly suggests that the Negro is of a different species; thus fulfilling the second criteria:  “The inferior vitality of mulattoes is spoken of in a trustworthy work [“Military and Anthropological Statistics of American Soldiers,” by B. A. Gould, 1869, p.319] as a well-known phenomenon; and this, although a different consideration from their lessened fertility, may perhaps be advanced as a proof of the specific distinctness of the parent races” (p.178).  Darwin also writes in this connection:  “…it may be justly urged that the perfect fertility of the intercrossed races of man, if established, would not absolutely preclude us from ranking them as distinct species” (p.179). 

Notwithstanding all the above arguments in support of the notion that Negroes represent a different species from European white man, Darwin concludes that “…if we reflect on the weighty arguments above given, for raising the races of man to the dignity of species, and the insuperable difficulties on the other side in defining them, it seems that the term ‘sub-species’ might here be used with propriety” (p.182).

It is clear, therefore, that Darwin believed that Negroes are actually so far down on the scale of humanity that they actually belong to separate sub-species, if not to a different species altogether (from that of civilized white man).   

Early on in Descent, Darwin discusses various aspects of man he deems significant.  Regarding the shape of the human and sub-human ear Darwin writes:  “It has been asserted that the ear 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” (p.15). 

Of the sense of smell:  “… But the sense of smell is of extremely slight service, if any, even to the dark colored races of men, in whom it is much more highly developed than in white and civilized races” (p.18).

Of the nictitating membrane (third eyelid):  “…in man, the quadrumana, and most other mammals, it exists, as is admitted by all anatomists, as a mere rudiment, called the semilunar fold” (p.18).  Darwin continues by citing Carl Vogt (“Lectures on Man”):  “This rudiment is somewhat larger in Negroes and Australians [Aborigines] than in Europeans.” 

Regarding the incidence of body hair on civilized man Darwin’s characterization of relative primitiveness is lacking.  While he does state that the existence of any hair on man indicates a relation to earlier forms (“There can be little doubt that the hairs thus scattered over the body are the rudiments of the uniform hairy coat of lower animals” (p.19)), and while he does point out that many European men have an abundance of body hair, especially on the shoulders, he makes no reference to European men being closely related with his anthropomorphous ape, as he is so anxious to do when making reference to certain characteristics of Negro people.  It is a simple fact that the so-called “civilized white Europeans” often possess considerably more body hair than do Negroes.  Thus it would appear that he is selective when drawing lines of connection between people and apes – if the people in question are his Negro sub-species, then he is quick to point out continuity; but if he is dealing with “civilized white Europeans,” such a connection is not made.  I suppose you could call this practice Darwinian “Unnatural Selection.”

Darwin does point out that it is not only the Negroes and Aborigines that bear a strong resemblance to lower species:  “Idiots also resemble the lower animals in some other respects; thus several cases are recorded of their carefully smelling every mouthful of food before eating it.  One idiot is described as often using his mouth in aid of his hands, whilst hunting for lice.  They are often filthy in their habits, and have no sense of decency; and several cases have been published of their bodies being remarkably hairy”  (pp.36,37).  I think it is interesting that Darwin saw the hairiness of idiots as bearing resemblance to the lower animals, but not the hairiness of civilized Europeans. 

Darwin then develops a very chilling connection:  “The lower members in a group give us some idea how the common progenitor was probably constructed; and it is hardly credible that a complex part, arrested at an early phase of embryonic development, should go on growing so as ultimately to perform its proper function, unless it had acquired such power during some earlier state of existence, when the present exceptional or arrested structure was normal.   The simple brain of a microcephalous idiot, in as far as it resembles that of an ape, may in this sense be said to offer a case of reversion.  …Certain structures, regularly occurring in the lower members of the group to which man belongs, occasionally make their appearance in him, though not found in the normal human embryo; or, if normally present in the human embryo, they become abnormally developed, although in a manner which is normal in the lower members of the group” (pp.37,38).   This is what Darwin is here suggesting:  The physical aspect that results in the type of diminished brain activity that makes an idiot an idiot is a common physical aspect present in Negroes (a so-called “lower member of the group”); i.e., idiots represent aberrations among civilized white men, but the norm among Negroes.

One of Darwin’s favorite terms is the one he uses to encompass all lower forms of man—it is the word “savage.”   When using this term Darwin intended to include not only Negroes, but other groups as well, such as the Australian Aborigines, American Aborigines, the Mongolians of the plains of Northern Asia, and other primitive groups such as the Quechua Indians of Peru, the Santali, or hill-tribes of India, and the tribes of Tierra del Fuego (among others).  Also, when using this term (savage) Darwin can safely be assumed to be implying a contrast of the peoples so categorized with European-type civilized peoples.   

It is clear from Darwin’s own words that in his mind the Negro species (or sub-species) falls into the category of savage.  Therefore, when Darwin writes “savage,” one can assume that he intends Negroes to be so included, unless otherwise specified.  Darwin may cite certain characteristics of savages that differ from one group to another; but, in his mind, Negroes are savages.   It would be helpful had Darwin spelled out exactly why he chose the term savage to designate this group of people, but he did not.  However, he does help us better to understand his notion of savage when he uses a verbal (stative/past participle) form of the word to describe what he perceived to be a morbid mood exhibited by his dog.  He writes:   “I had a dog who was savage and averse to all strangers…” (p.76).  Needless to say, Darwin did not have a very high opinion of “savages [read ‘Negroes’].” 

Regarding the relative size of the brain of savages, as compared to civilized man, Darwin writes:  “The belief that there exists in man some close relation between the size of the brain and the development of the intellectual faculties is supported by the comparison of the skulls of savage and civilized races, of ancient and modern people, and by the analogy of the whole vertebrate series.  …Professor Broca found that the nineteenth century skulls from graves in Paris were larger than those from vaults of the twelfth century, in the proportion of 1484 to 1426; and that the increased size, as ascertained by measurements, was exclusively in the frontal part of the skull—the seat of the intellectual faculties.  Prichard [‘Physical History of Mankind,’ vol. v. 1847] is persuaded that the present inhabitants of Britain have ‘much more capacious brain-cases’ than the ancient inhabitants” (p.55).  It is fascinating to note how Darwin explains away the fact that some of the most ancient savage brain-cases ever unearthed were actually larger than those of his beloved civilized European white man.  How could this be?  Well, apparently the savages of old killed off all their idiots, while civilized European men were much too gentile and kind to do such a thing.  Therefore, according to Darwin, it is necessary to factor in the smaller brain-cases of an unknowable quantity of allegedly murdered ancient savage infants when making a comparison with civilized Europeans (pp.55, 56, footnote 81), even though there is no empirical evidence for the existence of these small brain-case ancient idiots.   How, then, did these ancient men stack up?  According to Darwin,  “The ancestors of man were, no doubt, inferior in intellect, and probably in social disposition, to the lowest existing savages [again read “Negroes”]…” (p.65).

In describing the thought processes of savages, Darwin seems to be more fond of anecdote than evidence.  For instance, after telling the story of a pike that repeatedly ran into a glass barrier that had been inserted into its aquarium, Darwin pointed out that the pike continued to do so for several months, each time knocking itself senseless, until it finally learned to avoid the glass (Darwin did not observe this event first hand, he recounts it as it was reported by another, terming it a “curious case.”).  Darwin follows this second-hand story with one totally fabricated:  “If a savage, who had never seen a large plate-glass window, were to dash himself even once against it, he would for a long time afterwards associate a shock with a window-frame; but very differently from the pike, he would probably reflect on the nature of the impediment, and be cautious under analogous circumstances” (p.78). 

Regarding the search for water, Darwin provides another unsubstantiated supposition:  “Now what is the difference between such actions, when performed by an uncultivated man, and by one of the higher animals?  The savage and the dog have often found water at a low level, and the coincidence under such circumstances has become associated in their minds.  A cultivated man would perhaps make some general proposition of the subject; but from all that we know of savages it is extremely doubtful whether they would do so, and a dog certainly would not.  But a savage, as well as a dog, would search in the same way, though frequently disappointed; and in both it seems to be equally an act of reason…” (p.79).  

While both of these last two points could probably have been demonstrated scientifically, in both cases Darwin was content simply to make up his own little stories to support his argument, his “observations” not involving actual observation.   I believe that it is incumbent upon Darwin, if he is so thoroughly driven to demean whole groups of people (specifically Negroes), at least to make an attempt to demonstrate his statements scientifically.  He makes no such attempt, even in cases such as these in which he should have been able to produce empirical evidence, were his arguments sound.  

Darwin later includes another even more ridiculous anecdote purposed to explain primitive religion.  He writes:  “The tendency in savages to imagine that natural objects and agencies are animated by spiritual or living essences, is perhaps illustrated by a little fact which I once noticed:  my dog, a full-grown and very sensible animal, was lying on the lawn during a hot and still day; but at a little disturbance a slight breeze occasionally moved an open parasol, which would have been wholly disregarded by the dog, had any one stood near it.  As it was, every time that the parasol slightly moved, the dog growled fiercely and barked.  He must, I think, have reasoned to himself in a rapid and unconscious manner, that movement without any apparent cause indicated the presence of some strange living agent, and that no stranger had a right to be on his territory” (p.98).  

There are three elements of this little story that bother me greatly: 

• First of all, it seems to me to be highly presumptuous and arrogant for Darwin to relate his dog’s reaction to sudden motion (“the dog growled fiercely and barked”), to a Negro’s (savage man’s) view of religion.  Darwin cannot know what was going on in his dog’s brain any more than he could know what goes on in the mind of an individual.  Not only is it presumptuous and arrogant to draw such a conclusion, it smacks of unscientific stereotyping. 

• Second, Darwin’s use of the term “fact” is not only totally out of place here, it strongly suggests he is incapable of dealing with his subject from a scientific perspective.  He could have correctly written that his point “might be well illustrated by an observation he once made” of his dog.   To the casual observer this might not seem to be a significant distinction, but it is.  Darwin did not use the term “fact” appropriately, especially for a scientist.  One does not simply notice a “little fact.”  Now, assuming he was recounting the event truthfully, it could have been a fact that he observed (or, to use his word, “noticed”) his dog barking at the parasol, but he would not have intended that he observed himself observing.  It just doesn’t make sense for Darwin to “notice” a fact.  This inappropriate application of the term (fact) is further illustrated by Darwin’s positing all sorts of thought processes in the simple act of his dog’s barking.  It may have been a fact that Darwin made an observation, and then drew certain conclusions, but the entire content of that observation was based upon supposition – he offers no proof to substantiate what he terms a fact.  His procedure in this regard is again totally unscientific. 

• Third, Darwin writes that his dog “reasoned to himself in a rapid and unconscious manner.”   I might be willing to afford Darwin the latitude that his dog did possess reasoning ability, however I am not quite sure about “unconscious reasoning.”  Think about that that juxtaposition for a minute.   Perhaps Darwin should have stuck to his earlier vocation—preaching.   

I think it is clear here that Darwin is confused as to the nature of what animals do inside their skulls.  Darwin’s confusion in this regard is again illustrated by his further treatment of primitive religion.  Quoting Lubbock (“Prehistoric Times,” 2^nd Edition, p.571), Darwin writes:  “ ‘…it is not too much to say that the horrible dread of unknown evil hangs like a thick cloud over savage life, and embitters every pleasure.’ These miserable and indirect consequences of our highest faculties may be compared with the incidental and occasional mistakes of the instincts of the lower animals” (p.99).  I wonder what is the difference between Darwin’s dog reasoning to himself in a “rapid and unconscious manner,” and the “mistakes of the instincts of the lower animals”?  My “instincts” tell me that Darwin is here either careless or confused—perhaps both. 

There are numerous examples where Darwin interjects his personal “feelings” (as opposed to scientific reasoning) regarding the relative worth of the savage’s value system.  He writes:  “Judging from the hideous ornaments, and the equally hideous music admired by most savages, it might be urged that their aesthetic faculty was not so highly developed as in certain animals…” (p.96).   Such terminology is totally inappropriate for a scientist to use.  His words are utterly subjective, making him seem more like a CNN film critic than an empirical scientist.  Darwin continues:  “Obviously no animal would be capable of admiring such scenes as the heavens at night, a beautiful landscape, or refined music; but such high tastes are acquired through culture, and depend on complex associations; they are not enjoyed by barbarians or by uneducated persons” (p.96).  

I wonder upon which rule of logic Darwin bases this last statement.  Did he somehow mystically climb into one of his small savage “brain-cases” and learn first-hand just what that man was thinking?  Or did he, as I suppose he did, simply base his conclusion upon his own personal presuppositions and prejudices?    Some call that egregious racism.

Darwin tells another story, this one having to do with civilized man’s cultivated social instincts, vis-à-vis, those of the savage.   “…a savage will risk his own life to save that of a member of the same community, but will be wholly indifferent about a stranger:  a young and timid mother urged by the maternal instinct will, without a moment’s hesitation, run the greatest danger for her own infant, but not for a mere fellow-creature.  Nevertheless many a civilized man, or even a boy, who never before risked his life for another, but full of courage and sympathy, has disregarded the instinct of self-preservation, and plunged at once into a torrent to save a drowning man, though a stranger” (pp.113,114).  Once again Darwin presents an anecdote as evidence to prove the superiority of civilized white man. 

Rather than seeking to aid a person outside the group, Darwin points out that savage man would hold such a person in total disregard.  To demonstrate, Darwin tells yet another story.  In this story a magistrate in West Australia had a worker on his farm.  One of this savage worker’s wives had died of a disease, and the savage, feeling deep remorse, traveled to a distant tribe and killed a women from that tribe.  He did this not so much to “avenge” the death of his wife as to satisfy a perceived duty to the memory of the dead woman (p.118).  The inference here being that civilized man has a more cultivated system of morals and would not do such a thing.  Again Darwin is guilty of providing unscientific anecdotal evidence to support his racist argument. 

I think it curious that Darwin is so quick to point out the elevated moral status of his civilized white man, with regard to the two stories recounted above, while he totally overlooks (in making this point) the fact that it was his so-called civilized white man that headed up ventures deep into the distant “tribes” of Africa to kidnap hundreds of thousands of Negroes for the expressed purpose of enslavement.  I question the superiority of the white man’s morality, in this instance, over that of the grieving savage who went to a distant tribe to kill a woman from another tribe, regardless his reason for so doing.  In my opinion, in this case it could be argued that the white man may have demonstrated a more highly cultivated quality of guile, but superior morality is a stretch. 

Regarding the issue of cruelty among savages, Darwin writes:  “Most savages are utterly indifferent to the sufferings of strangers, or even delight in witnessing them.  …Nevertheless, besides the family affections, kindness is common, especially during sickness, between the members of the same tribe, and is sometimes extended beyond these limits.  Mungo Park’s touching account of the kindness of the negro women of the interior to him is well known” (p.121).

Regarding certain virtues among savages, Darwin writes:  “The other so-called self-regarding virtues, which do not obviously, though they may really, affect the welfare of the tribe, have never been esteemed by savages, though now highly appreciated by civilized nations.  The greatest intemperance is no reproach with savages.  Utter licentiousness, and unnatural crimes, prevail to an astounding extent.  …The hatred of indecency, which appears to us so natural as to be thought innate, and which is so valuable an aid to chastity, is a modern virtue, appertaining exclusively, as Sir G. Staunton remarks, to civilized life.  …The chief causes of the low morality of savages, as judged by our standard, are, firstly, the confinement of sympathy to the same tribe.  Secondly, powers of reasoning insufficient to recognize the bearing of many virtues, especially of the self-regarding virtues, on the general welfare of the tribe.  …And, thirdly, weak power of self-command…” (pp.122,123).  This is another example of Darwin’s predilection for racial stereotyping over science.

How significant to the whole argument did Darwin consider the distinction between the moral standards upheld by civilized man, and those upheld by savages [read “Negroes”]?    Darwin answers that question himself:  It was the “moral sense” that afforded the “best and highest distinction between man and the lower animals” (p.131).  Negroes did not have a moral standard of value, white European men did; that is, at least, in Darwin’s opinion.

According to Darwin’s thinking, when a civilized man performed an act that would be considered admirable, it was by virtue of his “morality.”  However, when a savage would perform the same or a similar act, it was out of his proclivity for “imitation.”  “Apes are much given to imitation,” writes Darwin, “as are the lowest savages…   Now, if some one man in a tribe, more sagacious than the others, invented a new snare or weapon, or other means of attack or defence, the plainest self-interest, without the assistance of much reasoning power, would prompt the other members to imitate him; and all would thus profit.   …In order that primeval men, or the ape-like progenitors of man, should become social, they must have acquired the same instinctive feelings, which impel other animals to live in a body; and they no doubt exhibited the same general disposition.  They would have felt uneasy when separated from their comrades, for whom they would have felt some degree of love; they would have warned each other of danger, and have given mutual aid in attack or defence.   All this implies some degree of sympathy, fidelity, and courage.  Such social qualities, the paramount importance of which to the lower animals is disputed by no one, were no doubt acquired by the progenitors of man in a similar manner, namely, through natural selection, aided by inherited habit.   …as the reasoning powers and foresight of the members [of a particular tribe] became improved, each man would soon learn that if he aided his fellow-men, he would commonly receive aid in return.  From this low motive he might acquire the habit of aiding his fellows…   But another and much more powerful stimulus to the development of the social virtues, is afforded by the praise and the blame of our fellow-men.  …At how early a period the progenitors of man in the course of their development, became capable of feeling and being impelled by, the praise or blame of their fellow-creatures, we cannot of course say.  But it appears that even dogs appreciate encouragement, praise, and blame.  The rudest savages feel the sentiment of glory, as they clearly show…  The [rudest savages] certainly feel shame at the breach of some of their lesser rules, and apparently remorse…  Ultimately our moral sense or conscience becomes a highly complex sentiment—originating in the social instincts, largely guided by the approbation of our fellow-men, ruled by reason, self-interest, and in later times by deep religious feelings, and confirmed by instruction and habit” (pp.133-137).

That, in a nutshell, is how Darwin viewed the development of moral thinking and behavior.  It was, as is obvious from his own words, his belief that savages were not capable of truly “virtuous” acts, only expeditious, imitative and self-serving acts.  True moral behavior was peculiar to civilized men, by which term he intended primarily European white men, and their Greek and Roman progenitors.  Remember, Darwin’s term “savage” included (among others) Negro peoples.  Therefore, according to Darwin’s Descent, when a European white man performed a virtuous act he likely did so out of his morality, while a similar (perhaps even identical) act performed by a Negro would be done out of baser instinct, or imitation.

Darwin is even more interesting when elaborating his views on racial engineering; or, as he terms it, “Natural Selection as affecting Civilized Nations.”  He writes:  “I have hitherto only considered the advancement of man from a semi-human condition to that of the modern savage.  But some remarks on the action of natural selection on civilized nations may be worth adding. This subject has been ably discussed by Mr. W.R. Greg, and previously by Mr. Wallace and Mr. Galton.  Most of my remarks are taken from these three authors.  With savages, the weak in body or mind are soon eliminated; and those that survive commonly exhibit a vigorous state of health.  We civilized men, on the other hand, do our utmost to check the process of elimination; we build asylums for the imbecile, the maimed, and the sick; we institute poor-laws; and our medical men exert their utmost skill to save the life of every one to the last moment.  There is reason to believe that vaccination has preserved thousands, who from a weak constitution would formerly have succumbed to small-pox.  Thus the weak members of civilized societies propagate their kind.  No one who has attended to the breeding of domestic animals will doubt that this must be highly injurious to the race of man.  It is surprising how soon a want of care, or care wrongly directed, leads to the degeneration of a domestic race; but excepting in the case of man himself, hardly any one is so ignorant as to allow his worst animals to breed” (pp.138-139). 

While it seems clear from his own words that Darwin had a serious concern about civilized man preserving the weak, grudgingly he admits that neglecting the weak would only be replacing “a contingent benefit, with an overwhelming present evil” (p.139).   Instead of openly advocating human engineering, he seeks to find the positive side of the issue.  He writes:  “Man accumulates property and bequeaths it to his children, so that the children of the rich have an advantage over the poor in the race for success, independently of bodily or mental superiority.  On the other hand, the children of parents who are short-lived, and are therefore on an average deficient in health and vigor, come into their property sooner than other children, and will be likely to marry earlier, and leave a larger number of offspring to inherit their inferior constitutions.  But the inheritance of property by itself is very far from an evil; for without the accumulation of capital the arts could not progress; and it is chiefly through their power that the civilized races have extended, and are now everywhere extending their range, so as to take the place of the lower races” (pp.139,140).  

With regard to the physical location for the so-called “birthplace” of man, Darwin writes:  “It is therefore probable that Africa was formerly inhabited by extinct apes closely allied to the gorilla and chimpanzee; and as these two species are now man’s nearest allies, it is somewhat more probable that our early progenitors lived on the African continent than elsewhere (p.161).  …The early progenitors of man must have been once covered with hair, both sexes having beards; their ears were probably pointed, and capable of movement; and their bodies were provided with a tail, having the proper muscles” (p.167).

How is it then, if man’s point of origination (where his distinction from the anthropomorphous ape took place) was under the same tree that the Negroes called home, did the Greeks, Romans and Europeans emerge, while the Negroes themselves remained savages?  Darwin elaborates:  “It must not, however, be supposed that groups of organic beings are always supplanted, and disappear as soon as they have given birth to other and more perfect groups.  The latter, though victorious over their predecessors, may not have become better adapted for all places in the economy of nature.  Some old forms appear to have survived from inhabiting protected sites, where they have not been exposed to very severe competition; and these often aid us in constructing our genealogies, by giving us a fair idea of former and lost populations.  But we must not fall into the error of looking at the existing members of any lowly-organized group as perfect representatives of their ancient predecessors” (pp.170,171).

What exactly is Darwin suggesting here?   It could be summarized in this fashion:  As man became a separate entity from the ape, some progressed more quickly and in different directions from the original savage.  These, whom Darwin calls the “more perfect groups,” eventually culminated in the Greeks, Romans and Europeans.  Others, namely Negroes, remained behind (developmentally for certain, perhaps geographically) by hiding themselves away in “protected sites,” and were consequently not able to improve at the same speed or in the same direction as were those who were developing into civilized man.   Darwin would include the Negro in this former group.  Again, Darwin provides no evidence for his racist conclusion.

So, what does all this mean with regard to “Negroes?”  Let’s, first of all, review Darwin’s own words for how he hopes this will all turn out.  Remember what he wrote? 

“At some future period, not very distant as measured by centuries, the civilized races of man will almost certainly exterminate, and replace, the savage races throughout the world.   At the same time the anthropomorphous apes, as Professor Schaaffhausen has remarked, will no doubt be exterminated.  The break between man and his nearest allies will then be wider, for it will intervene between man in a more civilized state, as we may hope, even than the Caucasian, and some ape as low as a baboon, instead of as now between the negro or Australian and the gorilla” (pp.162,163).

Darwin’s master plan, as he so clearly states it above, is to exterminate the savage races, i.e., the Negro.  …And how does he intend for this extermination to be implemented?  In his former comment, also quoted above (pp.139,140), Negroes, along with savage Australians, will be destroyed through the accumulation of wealth by European white men.  He writes that by virtue of the “accumulation of capital, …civilized races have extended, and are now everywhere extending their range, so as to take the place of the lower races.” 

Regarding the logistics involved in the extinction of the Negro, Darwin was convinced that while man can long resist conditions which appear extremely unfavorable for his existence, “…Extinction follows chiefly from the competition of tribe with tribe, and race with race”; and that “…When civilized nations come into contact with barbarians the struggle is short…” (p.189,190). 

In Darwin’s schema, diseases would also play a major role in the extinction of the Negro.   Darwin cites as a “mysterious" fact "… that the first meeting of distinct and separated people generates disease” (p.190).

Darwin attributed this great increase of diseases (among savages upon their coming into contact with civilized peoples) on the "changed habits of life, consequent on the advent of Europeans ...” (p.190).  …And what are some of these new “habits of life” that bring about the downfall of savages once such contact occurs?  Darwin cites as a source (Sproat, “Scenes and Studies of Savage Life,” 1868, p.284) that “the natives become ‘bewildered and dull by the new life around them; they lose the motives for exertion, and get no new ones in their place.’ ”  He further points out his belief that savages have a natural inclination for alcohol:  “…and so it may be with the evil effects from spirituous liquors, as well as with the unconquerably strong taste for them shown by so many savages” (p.190).  These factors, Darwin holds, lead to ill-health, infertility, and eventually to extinction among savages (p.191).

What Darwin does here is blatantly racist.  He attributes the advent of new and debilitating diseases experienced by savages (once they come in contact with civilized white men) to laziness, overindulgence, and mental inferiority.  Of course, we now know more about the human immune system than Darwin could have, but that does not excuse Darwin for his racial stereotyping. 

I can forgive Darwin here for his ignorance, but not for his racism.  In this instance, just as in many others, Darwin again exhibits his total disdain for the Negro, and his total disregard for scientific method.

Aiding in this effort to eliminate the Negro, Darwin suggests, is civilized man’s superior physical strength.  He writes that civilized men have been found, “...wherever compared, to be physically stronger than savages.  They appear also to have equal powers of endurance, as has been proved in many adventurous expeditions” (p.141).

There is simply no honest way to sugar-coat Darwin’s blatant racism in this instance.  Even to try to do so would be a clear demonstration of either dishonesty or ignorance on the part of the one attempting to apply the glaze.

Another problem suffered by these “wilder” races of man [read “Negroes and Aborigines”] is their inability to adjust to changing conditions or habits of life.  “Mere alterations in habits, which to not appear injurious in themselves, seem to have this same effect; and in several cases the children are particularly liable to suffer.  It has often been said, as Mr. Macnamara remarks, that man can resist with impunity the greatest diversities of climate and other changes; but this is true only of the civilized races.  Man in his wild condition seems to be in this respect almost as susceptible as his nearest allies, the anthropoid apes, which have never yet survived long, when removed from their native country” (p.196).  Darwin compares the problems associated with “wild men” becoming civilized to wild animals becoming domesticated:  “It is an interesting circumstance that the chief check to wild animals becoming domesticated, which implies the power of their breeding freely when first captured, and one chief check to wild men, when brought into contact with civilization, surviving to form a civilized race, is the same, namely, sterility from changed conditions of life” (p.199).

So, in summary of this section (regarding the eventual demise of the Negro, and other savage races), Darwin sees their extinction occurring as they come into prolonged contact with Europeans.  It will occur largely as a result of disease, sterility, indulgence, and lethargy.  …Not a very happy picture does Darwin paint for the future of Negroes—a more-than-just-a-little-racist-conclusion, in my opinion.

Regarding the “evolution” of art, beauty, poetry and music in the history of man, especially as they relate to the Negro, Darwin also has some interesting opinions:  “The Negro in Africa when excited often bursts forth in song; ‘another will reply in song, whilst the company, as if touched by a musical wave, murmur a chorus in perfect unison’ [he quotes from Winwood Reade, “The Martyrdom of Man”].  Even monkeys express strong feelings in different tones—anger and impatience by low,—fear  and pain by high notes.  …All these facts with respect to music and impassioned speech become intelligible to a certain extent, if we may assume that musical tones and rhythm were used by our half-human ancestors…” (pp.592,593).  Poetry, Darwin points out, is an “offspring of song” (p.591).  He is quite amazed at the antiquity of poetry, stating that many are “...astonished that it should have arisen during the earliest ages of which we have any record”  (p.591).   In fact, Darwin thought that language came about as a result of “musical sounds” (p.593). 

Musical faculties, Darwin writes in another place,  “…are present, though in a very rude condition, in men of all races, even the most savage; but so different is the taste of the several races, that our music gives no pleasure to savages, and their music is to us in most cases hideous and unmeaning” (p.590).  Again, Darwin throws away even a semblance of objective science, and replaces it with subjective racial stereotyping.

Regarding the role played by physical beauty in sexual selection among civilized peoples, Darwin contradicts himself.  At one point he states:  “In civilized life man is largely, but by no means exclusively, influenced in the choice of his wife by external appearance…” (p.594).   On another page he states that civilized men are not much interested in the physical appearance of a woman.  He writes:  “Civilized men are largely attracted by the mental charms of women, by their wealth, and especially by their social position…  The men who succeed in obtaining the more beautiful women will not have a better chance of leaving a long line of descendants than other men with plainer wives…” (p.607).  The case could be made in this instance, that if natural selection is considered operating here, these two statements are utterly contradictory. 

Nevertheless, whether or not Darwin thought civilized man sought out the best looking babes, he was convinced that savages did.  He writes that:  “…savages pay the greatest attention to their [their sexual partners’] personal appearance" (p.594).   He continues:  "…the negroes of the West Coast [of Africa] often discuss the beauty of their women” (p.598).   In some Negro tribes, Darwin points out, the women even go so far as to kill off their babies to preserve their beauty (by avoiding breast-feeding); while in other tribes the ugly women are sold (pp.596-608).

Darwin is convinced that the concern expressed by certain civilized European white men—that Negro men might seek out their white women—is without merit.   Darwin, agreeing with one of his sources, writes:  “He [Mr. Reade, “The African Sketchbook,” 1873] does not think it probable that negroes would ever prefer the most beautiful European woman, on the mere grounds of physical admiration, to a good-looking negress” (p.603).

Darwin concludes his Descent with this summary:  “He who has seen a savage in his native land will not feel much shame, if forced to acknowledge that the blood of some more humble creature flows in his veins” (p.642).  What Darwin is suggesting here is that it seems more palatable to him to seek his roots in a monkey, than in the Negro living in his native state.  He continues:  “For my own part I would as soon be descended from that heroic little monkey, who braved his dreaded enemy in order to save the life of his keeper, or from that old baboon, who descended from the mountains, carried away in triumph his young comrade from a crowd of astonished dogs—as from a savage [read contemporary “Negro”] who delights to torture his enemies, offers up bloody sacrifices, practices infanticide without remorse, treats his wives like slaves, knows no decency, and is haunted by the grossest superstitions” (pp.642-643).  

Conclusion:

In some ways, Darwin viewed Black Africans as something less than monkeys.  His words state that clearly—he would rather view himself as having monkey blood running through his veins, than to accept kinship with Black Africans. 

In his final words in Descent, Darwin writes:  “We must, however, acknowledge, as it seems to me, that man with all his noble qualities, with sympathy which feels for the most debased, with benevolence which extends not only to other men but to the humblest living creature, with his god-like intellect which has penetrated into the movements and constitution of the solar system—with all these exalted powers—Man still bears in his bodily frame the indelible stamp of his lowly origin” (p.643).  This statement tells us exactly how Darwin viewed the proper posture for civilized white man to assume, vis-à-vis the “debased” Black Africans:  It was a posture of sympathy for, not equality with, a posture of benevolence extended, not impartiality advanced.*

Darwin regarded himself as a man of “benevolence” toward his lowly fellow travelers—the savages.  I think his choice of that term (“benevolence”) is most telling of all.  What he is suggesting here is that he, as a civilized European white man, must provide emotional and charitable help to those whom he believes to be substantially less human than he—namely, Black Africans.   It is just as though Darwin viewed the history of mankind from a lofty perch within a zoo.  In fact, Darwin uses the term “zoo,” or one of its various derivatives, well over 100 times in Descent. 

It is clear that, while Darwin might not have viewed himself as a slave-owning plantation boss, he certainly did think himself to be the keeper of a zoo—the self-appointed guardian and cataloguer of the “animals” of the world.  In Darwin’s eyes, he was the “Munificent Zoo Keeper”—the one who possessed more than his share of what he called “god-like intellect,” the one who went beyond beneficent, past benevolent, all the way to munificent, the ultimate do-good caretaker for all the residents of this giant zoo we call earth.   Perhaps he might even wish us to refer to him as “His Munificent Excellency the Very Honorable Charles Darwin, Zoo Keeper of the World.”    

As should be obvious by now, it is my conclusion that Darwin was a self-absorbed  raging racist, and I contend that his Descent demonstrates that proclivity beyond any doubt.  Furthermore, I contend that not only was Darwin a raging racist, but that he allowed this mental impairment to taint his attempt at “scientific” thinking, particularly his work in Descent.  

Instead of Charles Darwin “exterminating” Black Africans, I believe it is time for us to rise up and exterminate the teachings of this racist from the educational system.   Real science has already rejected Darwin's teachings, as has common sense.  Darwin's only area of strength remains in the educational establishment; and it is from that fortification that his teachings have fought off real science, and continue to corrupt the minds of all those subjected to it.  

It is time for Darwin to go, and for healing to begin.  To think otherwise, after having read this paper, is to admit racism, or ignorance.