Cancel Culture Comes For Darwin

Remember the days when Liberals revered Darwin and Darwinism? Think back to the Bush 43 years, when there were arguments over Darwinism, Intelligent Design, and Religion. Heck, we thought those debates could get heated. If only we knew what was coming, eh? Anyhow, Libs loved them some Darwin, and would protect his theory no matter what. Jump ahead less than 20 years and this is what you get

Darwin’s Theory of Evolution Justifies ‘White Male Supremacy’, Claims Woke University

British naturalist Charles Darwin has become the latest historical scientist to run afoul of the “decolonise the curriculum” movement, with Sheffield University reportedly claiming that Darwin’s theory on evolution was used to “justify white male supremacy”.

A handbook produced by the university informs lecturers and pupils that celebrating “white saviour” figures such as Darwin serves to overshadow less privileged scientists and scholars and that the “whiteness and Eurocentrism of our science” should be deconstructed, according to The Telegraph.

The guidance, which was seen by the right-leaning newspaper, is said to add that “It is clear that science cannot be objective and apolitical,” and “the curriculum we teach must acknowledge how colonialism has shaped the field of evolutionary biology and how evolutionary biologists think today”.

The passage on Darwin also claims that his famed trip on the HMS Beagle — when he collected plant and animal specimens used to develop his theory of natural selection — was in fact a clandestine mission to map colonies for the British Empire.

This claim has been disputed by Oxford University historian Professor Nigel Biggar, who told the paper: “During Darwin’s lifetime the British Empire was busy emancipating slaves across the world.

“The ‘decolonising’ assumption that ‘colonial mapping’ was all about oppression is false, and the judgement that Darwin should be damned by association is morally stupid,” the professor said.

Facts do not matter. Reality does not matter. These moonbats have a Narrative, and will never give up on it, and will always push it forward. Darwin himself was heavily against slavery, and said and published that viewpoint. He was rather woke (not Woke) for his day.

Charles Darwin has also previously been swept up in the Black Lives Matter furore, with Britain’s Natural History Museum launching a review in September into “offensive” and “problematic” collections, including exotic birds collected by Darwin.

So, not the first time the Woke have come after Darwin. This stuff spreads like unchecked pests.

A University of Sheffield spokesman defended the push to decolonise the curriculum, saying: “We are not removing key historical figures from our curriculum, but we are adding those who have also made significant contributions to the fields of maths, science and engineering that are not currently represented.”

And turning those like Darwin into racists who need to be erased simply for the color of their skin. But don’t call it racism!

Save $10 on purchases of $49.99 & up on our Fruit Bouquets at 1800flowers.com. Promo Code: FRUIT49
If you liked my post, feel free to subscribe to my rss feeds.

Both comments and trackbacks are currently closed

17 Responses to “Cancel Culture Comes For Darwin”

  1. Hairy says:

    Darwin?
    Darwin has a lot more to be afraid of than 1 university (out of over 100 in England) coming after him
    68% of all Republicans do not believe in evolution
    69% of all Republicans do not believe in AGW climate change
    Teach how are you on that “Darwin” thing?

  2. david7134 says:

    John,
    I am sure you feel intellectually superior to most, just like Jeff, but let me bring you down to reality, you are both as dumb as a rock. Now, in the matter of evolution, I would feel a reference is necessary if not the nature of the questions. As to belief in the climate religion, those numbers don’t seem right as I don’t know a single conservative that has fallen for that hoax.

    But let’s look at the election. I feel it was stolen, but what if the numbers are actually real. That means that you and 80 million other Americans and illegals voted for a corrupt slime who is in the advanced stages of dementia. This is not only my attitude, but also the view of the rest of the civilized world. Now that is stupid.

  3. Dana says:

    Quite frankly, I’m surprised that this has taken so long. “Survival of the fittest” states that the strongest and most intelligent dominate, because they have an evolutionary advantage. If this is true, and humans of western European descent have dominated in human history, doesn’t Darwinism naturally say that humans of western European descent are the fittest?

    That was certainly the conclusion in the 19th and early part of the 20th centuries. How did a few million British hold power over hundreds of millions of Asians and Africans? How did a handful of white English settlers conquer millions of Indians indigenous Americans, or primarily white European settlers conquer and mostly destroy the Indians indigenous Americans south of the Rio Grande?

    We are not allowed, today, to come to the conclusion that they were superior people, the way such conclusions were drawn a hundred and more years ago, but without drawing some reasonable conclusions, how can we understand what happened?

    • Elwood P. Dowd says:

      Mx Dana: “Survival of the fittest” states that the strongest and most intelligent dominate, because they have an evolutionary advantage.

      “Survival of the fittest” neither refers to physical strength nor intelligence. “Fitness” in this context refers to reproductive success or “Survival of the form that will leave the most copies of itself in successive generations.”

      There are more Escherichia coli in a single turd than there are humans. Ants number in the tens of TRILLIONS.

      Chinese, Africans and Hispanics are out reproducing humans of western European descent.

      Pieces of RNA wrapped in a protein shell have killed millions of humans this year, none more than in America. The next piece of RNA with even better reproductive characteristics may take out billions of humans.

      Does the ability to capture, kill, enslave and dominate other humans really make one “superior”? Were Mao, Hitler and Stalin superior humans?

      • drowningpuppies says:

        Rimjob: Were Mao, Hitler and Stalin superior humans?

        Uh no, but like Rimjob, dipshit that he is, they certainly thought they were.

        And like Rimjob, dipshit that he is, many believe they were.

        #BelieveTheLie
        Bwaha! Lolgf https://www.thepiratescove.us/wp-content/plugins/wp-monalisa/icons/wpml_cool.gif

      • Dana says:

        The esteemed Mr Dowd wrote:

        “Survival of the fittest” neither refers to physical strength nor intelligence. “Fitness” in this context refers to reproductive success or “Survival of the form that will leave the most copies of itself in successive generations.”

        Why are there no Neanderthal alive today? They appear to have lived for longer than homo sapiens sapiens, and lived in the same areas, yet now they are gone, either killed or assimilated.

        Humans are predators: we kill other species for our own benefit, and that has included killing those other humans who have been in our way. All of human history has been a story of the stronger conquering, dominating, and frequently killing the weaker groups of humans who were in their way.

        Chinese, Africans and Hispanics are out reproducing humans of western European descent.

        The Africans and Hispanics, at least, may be outreproducing humans of western European descent, but they are not outproducing them; they have been reproducing into poverty, and reproducing more poverty. The Chinese may be doing better, and given the performance of Asian students vis a vis others, including whites, it is arguable that they could be more intelligent; certainly their internal culture where education and the work ethic is superior.

        • Zachriel says:

          Dana: … human history has been a story of the stronger conquering, dominating, and frequently killing the weaker groups of humans who were in their way.

          It’s also the story of ever-greater degrees of cooperation and organization.

      • kilroy says:

        Incorrect, survival of the fittest refers to those with evolutionary advantages will thrive, and those without them will not. Natural selection picks winners and losers.

        • Zachriel says:

          kilroy: survival of the fittest refers to those with evolutionary advantages will thrive, and those without them will not.

          Sure, and for humans, cooperation has been a trademark adaptation, increasingly so over history.

  4. Dana says:

    The esteemed Mr Dowd asked what he thought was a rhetorical question:

    Does the ability to capture, kill, enslave and dominate other humans really make one “superior”? Were Mao, Hitler and Stalin superior humans?

    Yes, actually, they were. They had the ability to take advantage of their situations to a greater extent than others, to persuade other people to follow them well before they had the power to force compliance, and the sheer willpower to dominate other people. That they were evil men does not mean that they weren’t tremendous examples of domination.

    From the everything I needed to know I learned from Star Trek Department: Khan Noonien Singh, on visiting the quarters of Lt Marla McGivers, noted her paintings of Lief Ericksson, Richard Coeur de Leon, and others, said “All bold men from the past.” Pulling the cover off a painting Lt McGivers was doing of him, Khan said, “Such men dare take what they wish.” Mao Tse-tung, Adolf Hitler, Josef Stalin all dared to take what they wished.

    • Zachriel says:

      Dana: Yes, actually, they were.

      Mao, Hitler, and Stalin have been relegated to the waste bin of history. They were overcome by more democratic and egalitarian cultures.

      • Dana says:

        Adolf Hitler was defeated when he tried to take too bit a bite, but Josef Stalin and Mao Tse-tung were in power until their deaths. Chairman Mao’s Communist Party lives on, and if its economic policies have changed, its totalitarian control over the most populace nation on earth continues.

        Russia has contracted in size from the old USSR, but it remains militarily powerful and is hardly democratic.

        • Zachriel says:

          Dana: Adolf Hitler was defeated when he tried to take too bit a bite, but Josef Stalin and Mao Tse-tung were in power until their deaths.

          Nazism was utterly defeated. Stalinism fell from internal contradictions. Maoism evolved into a less virulent form. Of course, these are all cultural changes, not biological ones. We wouldn’t regard any of them as biologically “superior.”

      • Kye says:

        Now you know none of that is true Zachriel. Hitler committed suicide after his country was ground to rubble in a war yet fascism lives on. Just ask the Xiden Junta. Both Stalin and Mao lived long and happy lives and both died of natural causes neither being overcome by anything let alone things as trite as democratic or egalitarian cultures. Yet communism also survives. Again I refer you to the backers of Chairman Xiden. Funny how the fascists, Nazis and communists have now all joined together to sing Kumbaya and herald in the Great Reset, isn’t it? Seems all those despotic tyrannies are not that much different after all. Just check out Fortress DC for a glimpse of America’s future under todays left.

        • Zachriel says:

          Kye: Hitler committed suicide after his country was ground to rubble in a war yet fascism lives on.

          Neo-Fascism certainly does exist on the extreme right, but has much less currency today than it did in the 1930s. Trump had some of the trappings of fascism, but, like most other fascists, incompetence ruled the day.

          Kye: Just ask the Xiden Junta.

          Never heard of it.

          The U.S. is a flawed democracy, but will typically muddle through after the abuses of the Trump era.

          Kye: Both Stalin and Mao lived long and happy lives and both died of natural causes neither being overcome by anything let alone things as trite as democratic or egalitarian cultures.

          Z: Nazism was utterly defeated. Stalinism fell from internal contradictions. Maoism evolved into a less virulent form. Of course, these are all cultural changes, not biological ones.

          Most other countries have become more democratic over time, though that wave of democratization apparently reached its crest.

  5. Zachriel says:

    … Darwin’s theory on evolution was used to “justify white male supremacy”.

    Well, that would be true, as Dana illustrates so well.

    The passage on Darwin also claims that his famed trip on the HMS Beagle — when he collected plant and animal specimens used to develop his theory of natural selection — was in fact a clandestine mission to map colonies for the British Empire.

    Mapping wasn’t clandestine, but an explicit part of the mission. There is no doubt that Britain used their explorations to expand and consolidate their empire.

    “We are not removing key historical figures from our curriculum, but we are adding those who have also made significant contributions to the fields of maths, science and engineering that are not currently represented.”

    So, they are not canceling Darwin, after all.

Bad Behavior has blocked 9952 access attempts in the last 7 days.