+- +-

+-User

Welcome, Guest.
Please login or register.
 
 
 
Forgot your password?

+-Stats ezBlock

Members
Total Members: 51
Latest: JUST4TheFACTS
New This Month: 0
New This Week: 0
New Today: 0
Stats
Total Posts: 14024
Total Topics: 268
Most Online Today: 25
Most Online Ever: 137
(April 21, 2019, 04:54:01 am)
Users Online
Members: 0
Guests: 14
Total: 14

Author Topic: Mechanisms of Prejudice: Hidden and Not Hidden  (Read 6841 times)

0 Members and 0 Guests are viewing this topic.

AGelbert

  • Administrator
  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 31028
  • Location: Colchester, Vermont
    • Renwable Revolution
Re: Mechanisms of Prejudice: Hidden and Not Hidden
« Reply #60 on: October 12, 2014, 07:26:56 pm »
One can see a distinct change for the worse after 1859, with a marked increase in callousness, ill-treatment and brutality towards Aboriginal people
Agelbert NOTE:
I've split this article into two. What follows is the first part. All jacked up fonts and smileys for accent and highlighting are my doing. 
By the way, the LAW profession was INSTRUMENTAL in making all that you will now read about, LEGISLATED into being LAWFUL AND LEGAL. They did not lift a FINGER to stop this despite the fact that most of them were professing "Christians". In fact, they were the HANDMAIDENS of the pseudo scientific Social Darwinism true believers in Government by making BUTCHERY legal.  Admittedly, SOME laws EVENTUALLY curtailed OPEN SEASON on Aborigines for Darwinian "Science" (and good "specimen" prices!). Some scientists are complaining, to this day,  about lawful laws that got rid of many UNLAWFUL LAWS.  ;D

But, of course, to the average Australian White back then, Christian or not, it was JUST PRACTICAL CFS to go with the effluent flow.  Korah Wills, a mayor and a fine upstanding citizen  (just GOOGLE him - no mention is made of his LEGAL Aborigine hunting for science and profit),  made a little money, for the good of science, of course by killing and dismembering an Aborigine. 

Contrary to what many modern folks may claim, some rather erudite and well reasoned arguments in favor of this "policy" were made by intelligent, scholarly, educated, logical, prudent, practical, etc. keen legal minds and luminaries of that era. I am not being sarcastic. They really WERE being practical. As many modern jurists will patiently explain to those people like myself (that don't know nuttin' about LAW ), being based on morality is not only NOT sine qua none for a LAW to be LAWFUL, it's irrelevant. They managed to cleverly undermine and discredit any accusations of iniquity as "sentimentality" (i.e. MORAL considerations must be IGNORED as being UNLAWFUL according to their Darwinian Definition of "natural" LAW).  Past can be prologue. Enjoy...


Missing the link between Darwin and racism Part 1 of 2
by Warren Nunn
Published: 12 October 2014 (GMT+10)

In an article titled Sorry, atheists, but you’re wrong: The death of Love your neighbour, CMI highlighted how much Australian society had changed for the worse and linked that to the increasing acceptance of evolutionary ideas.

Anthony B., from France, in a comment on the article, said evolution should not be blamed and suggested the ‘religious’ had a part to play in the poor treatment of Aboriginal Australians in the 19th century. He wrote:
Quote
The rise in gratuitous violence is a disgrace, but as to whether the theory of evolution is to blame is somewhat controversial. In the 19C in your country the violence meted out to aborigenes [sic] was carried out when people were far more religious than today.
Violence is indeed ‘a disgrace’; but it’s a pity that the perpetrators of the gratuitous violence don’t seem to see it as such. And how is teaching them an evolutionary view of their origins going to change their minds?

But in any case, Anthony B. clearly did not think through his comment and/or chose to ignore the historical record which shows that it was evolutionary thinking that convinced society that indigenous Australians were ‘living missing links’. From that flowed countless heinous acts of murder, etc, many of which were done for the ‘benefit’ of allegedly ‘scientific’ knowledge.

In his book One Human Family, CMI’s Managing Director Dr Carl Wieland reveals the depth of the problem. The following extract shows clearly, with documentation, that it was the rush to adopt Charles Darwin’s ideas that fuelled a dramatic upsurge in shameful actions:


Aboriginals bearing the brunt

An unusual book was published in 1974, called Aborigines in White Australia: A Documentary History of the Attitudes Affecting Official Policy and the Australian Aborigine 1697–1973.1 Apart from a few introductory/editorial comments, it consists almost entirely of substantial excerpts from documents. These are parliamentary transcripts, court records,   letters to editors, anthropological reports, and so forth. Far from showing a progressive enlightenment in the attitudes of the colonists as time goes on, one can see a distinct change for the worse after 1859, with a marked increase in callousness, ill-treatment and brutality towards Aboriginal people being evident in official attitudes. This is not lost on the editor of the above book, who writes:

“In 1859 Charles Darwin’s book On the Origin of Species popularized the notion of biological (and therefore social) evolution. Scholars began to discuss civilization as a unilinear process with races able to ascend or descend a graduated scale. The European was … the ‘fittest to survive’ … [The Aboriginal] was doomed to die out according to a ‘natural law’, like the dodo and the dinosaur. This theory, supported by the facts at hand [i.e. that Aboriginal folk were dying out from ill-treatment and disease—CW] continued to be quoted until well into the twentieth century when it was noticed that the dark-skinned race was multiplying. Until that time it could be used to justify neglect and murder.”   


From the book’s transcript of an interrogation of a policeman during a Royal Commission of Inquiry in 1861 (p. 83), we read concerning the use of force against tribal Aboriginals:
“‘And if we did not punish the blacks they would look upon it as a confession of weakness?’
‘Yes, that is exactly my opinion.’
‘It is a question as to which is the strongest race—if we submit to them they would despise us for it?’
‘Yes …’” 


The lowly state in which some Australians viewed the indigenous population was evident before Darwin’s ideas began to take hold.

The influence of evolutionary thinking can also be seen in another excerpt from Aborigines in White Australia, on p. 100. The writer quoted, also author of an 1888 book, is justifying the killing of the native population in the State of Victoria. He writes:
“As to the ethics of the question, there can be drawn no final conclusion.”

He says that this is because it is
“a question of temperament; to the sentimental it is undoubtedly an iniquity; to the practical it represents a distinct step in human progress, involving the sacrifice of a few thousands of an inferior race. … But the fact is that mankind, as a race, cannot choose to act solely as moral beings.  They are governed by animal laws which urge them blindly forward upon tracks they scarce can choose for themselves.” 

In other words, he is justifying ‘iniquity’ (another word for sin) by appealing to the ‘animal laws’ of the evolutionary struggle for survival. Opposition can be dismissed as ‘sentimental’—lacking understanding of such ‘natural laws’ .
There were isolated voices of protest. On p. 93, we read of a letter writer to an Australian newspaper in 1880, who, incensed by the treatment of his fellow man, stated:

“This, in plain language, is how we deal with the aborigines: On occupying new territory the aboriginal inhabitants are treated exactly in the same way as the wild beasts or birds the settlers may find there. Their lives and their property, the nets, canoes, and weapons which represent as much labor to them as the stock and buildings of the white settler, are held by the Europeans as being at their absolute disposal. Their goods are taken, their children forcibly stolen, their women carried away, entirely at the caprice of white men. The least show of resistance is answered by a rifle bullet … [those] who fancied the amusement have murdered, ravished, and robbed the blacks without let or hindrance. Not only have they been unchecked, but the Government of the colony has been always at hand to save them from the consequences of their crime.”2


But such voices were readily drowned out by the fashionable science of the day. Three pages further on, we read of someone else, also writing in an 1880 newspaper, who said:

“Nothing that we can do will alter the inscrutable and withal immutable laws which direct our progress on this globe. By these laws the native races of Australia were doomed on the advent of the white man, and the only thing left for us to do is to assist in carrying them out [i.e. helping the ‘laws’ of evolution by hastening the Aborigines’ doom—CW] with as little cruelty as possible … We must rule the blacks by fear … .”3

This Australian newspaper article highlights how Aboriginals were butchered in the name of science. The article mentions 19th century politician Korah Wills who admitted to killing and dismembering the body of an Aboriginal.


Korah Wills: Politician, Gentleman, Good Family Man and a Man of Letters!

Australian secular historian Joanna Cruickshank acknowledges, if somewhat reluctantly, not only the baneful effects of the Darwin-inspired ‘scientific racism’ on Australian Aboriginals, but the way in which belief in our common descent from Adam and Eve operated to temper such thinking. In a recent article4 on the topic, she writes:

“Supporters of Darwin have understandably often been reluctant to acknowledge how closely entangled Darwinism and social Darwinism were, preferring to distance Darwin from his theory’s evil twin."  ;)

Yet those who debated the theory of evolution in the late nineteenth century were keenly aware of this connection … . Nowhere was this more obvious than in Australia.”

She writes how by 1876, the library of a typical squatter (pastoralist) consisted of books by Shakespeare, John Stuart Mill, and Darwin. The pattern, widespread today, of church leaders anxious to compromise with this new ‘scientific’ ideology, was already evident. She writes how in 1869, a Reverend Bromby gave a public lecture defending Darwin’s book, in which he
“followed Darwin’s logic in using the apparent dying out of Aboriginal people as evidence for evolution.
“In response, the Anglican Bishop of Melbourne, Charles Perry, attacked both Bromby’s evidence and his conclusions. Perry critiqued what he saw as the scientific inadequacies of Darwin’s book.
“In particular, however, Perry attacked the view that human beings could be divided by race—or any other category—into ‘savage’ and ‘civilised’ … .” 

Cruickshank explains that Bromby represented the ‘progressive’ wing of the Church of England. Betraying her pro-evolution bias, she calls him “open to scientific evidence” and “dismissive of biblical literalism.”  ;D

She continues:


“Perry, by contrast, was a staunch evangelical, uncomfortable with the theological implications of Darwin’s theory and horrified at what he saw as a threat to the biblical claim that all humanity was formed of ‘one blood.’”

Cruickshank goes on to say that when legislation  was passed “enshrining the ‘White Australia’ policy and effectively denying Aboriginal people the vote, few voices were raised in protest. Progressives and conservatives alike saw the preservation of the more evolved white race as central to national identity.  ;D

Following Darwin and his contemporaries, they [Aboriginals] were regarded by scientists and other evolutionary enthusiasts as ‘living missing links’  >:(

“Those few protests against the policy came from unlikely quarters. The fledgling New South Wales Aborigines Mission, a small evangelical organization, pointed out that while most politicians claimed ‘to be ultrademocratic, they are sadly conservative in democratic practice, and unChristian both in theory and in practice when they say that a native born Australian is not a man and a brother because his skin happens to be a few shades darker than their own.’

Finally, and very significantly for our purposes here, this secular historian states:
“In earlier periods, one of the few persistent barriers to social Darwinist theory in Australia was the Christian doctrine that all human beings were of ‘one blood.’”


Agelbert NOTE:
We ALL KNOW what SCIENCE and GOVERNMENT DOES about persistent barriers to "proper modern, progressive, Gott mit uns, scientific" thinking, now don't we?  

A gruesome trade; Darwin's Bodysnatchers for "Science"
Continued in part 2:

Missing the link between Darwin and racism Part 2 of 2
« Last Edit: October 12, 2014, 08:54:10 pm by AGelbert »
Hope deferred maketh the heart sick: but when the desire cometh, it is a tree of life. Pr. 13:12

 

+-Recent Topics

War Provocations and Peace Actions by AGelbert
November 13, 2019, 03:15:06 pm

🌟 IMPEACHMENT SCORE 🌠 by AGelbert
November 13, 2019, 02:58:16 pm

Corporate Profits over Patient in the Health Care Field by AGelbert
November 13, 2019, 02:35:23 pm

Money by AGelbert
November 13, 2019, 01:53:46 pm

Doomstead Diner Daily by AGelbert
November 13, 2019, 12:34:11 pm

🚩 Global Climate Chaos ☠️ by AGelbert
November 12, 2019, 10:35:17 pm

Healthy Eating by AGelbert
November 12, 2019, 09:14:59 pm

Corruption in Government by AGelbert
November 11, 2019, 07:24:57 pm

End Times according to the Judeo Christian Bible by AGelbert
November 10, 2019, 03:58:20 pm

Corporate Fascist Corruption of Christianity by AGelbert
November 10, 2019, 03:37:06 pm