Australian History and Social Darwinism - Essay Example

Australian History and Social Darwinism Presented by (Name) Presented to (Lecturer) Topic Date Introduction: Social Darwinism refers to a popular theory in the ancient history which believed in and supported survival for the fittest. The strongest and fittest in the society were allowed to flourish and survive while the poor, weak or unfit were let to suffer or even die. The theory support survival of the strongest by all means even at the expense of the weak ones in the society (Sakett Lee, 1996). In today’s environment it could represent a scenario of those who have are given some more and the ones with little get it taken away. One among the people who expounded on the theory of social Darwinism was Herbert Spencer. Social Darwin’s theory has been adapted form the famous Charles Darwin’s theory of evolution, natural selection, survival and adaptations. In the Australian history the theory of Darwinism was used by the authorities of the time to deprive the weak and poor of the little that they owned and to support survival of the mighty and strong by the standards of the time (Numbers &Stenhouse, 2001). The concepts borrowed from the theory of social Darwinism such as adaptation allowed the authorities of the time to feel like it was ethical, proper and in order to exploit the poor to have the strong and might flourish. The theory suggests that the rich and might in the ancient history were more adapted to the environment of the times in terms of economic and social environment. It was regarded as a proper and normal to take from the weak and poor. After all, it was a natural and it was what went on in the everyday life and in the nature. Survival was a concept that always favored those who were better adapted to the environment’s social and economic conditions. The rich and powerful were better adapted to the environment because nature allowed and wanted them to thrive. The poor and weak were not strategically adapted to the social and economic environment of the times and that is why they could never survive. Nature intended for them to exist to advantage the strong and rich who were supposed to flourish at any cost. The governments and authorities found no problem with having the might thrive at the expense of the poor and weak. It was not the authorities and governments fault that all people could not be well adapted for survival (Numbers &Stenhouse, 2001). It is natural to have some people flourish and others not so there would be a balance in the environment. In Australia, the rich were meant to have all the resources and it was right for them to take anything while the poor could not. As an ethical theory, Social Darwinism condemns helping the weak and socially unfit in the society. In fact it suggest that it was morally unethical for ant one to help somebody who was lower in the social status .This was unethical because it was seen as promoting existence of weaklings and growth and multiplication of social misfits. This would be extremely wrong because it is working against natural values and against the essence of nature pure existence (Numbers &Stenhouse, 2001). Nature supports and promotes existence of only what is supposed to be there, if some thing was not adapted for survival then it was not desirable. Social Darwinism in Australia affected the indigenous community of the Aborigines who owned most resources such as land and had them taken away from them. The Aborigines were regarded as a weak and dying race. This formed a basis for justification for racism in the late 1920s and early 1930s. Foreign People invaded Australia and disregarded the natives and denied them of natural rights. Followers of the Social Darwinism theory believed that the native community of Australia: Aborigines were inferior, less human being, very primitive and archaic. This gave them a justification to exploit and oppress the Aborigines on the grounds that they were socially not fit to live in the then modern society (Sakett Lee, 1996). The truth was that the native Aborigines owned some very rich lands that the English colonialists desired to have. The theory of Social Darwinism came in handy in getting justification for taking the Aborigines land for personal and selfish gains. They claimed that the Aborigines were primitive and were not putting the land in to proper use, since they were weak and socially unfit. They regarded themselves as wise, productive and better adapted to better the nature than the native Aborigines. The white skinned tried to extinct the natives by all means. They even shot them and poisoned them to rid nature of the unfit community. This was just a philosophical justification for the white man’s greed and selfishness. The theory of Social Darwinism brought about Racism. Racism became another social issue that affected the indigenous people of Australia. The Aborigines were discriminated against by the whites. They were treated like weak and unfit creations in the nature that were a shame, undesirable and unproductive. This got so bad that some natives were forcibly bred with the whites so they would become a bit desirable and worth to the natural environment. It was hoped that after some generations, the natives of Australia would become white skinned (Sakett Lee, 1996). The whites did every thing possible to prevent reproduction of the Aborigines; whom they believed were an unfit and inferior breed in the human race in Australia. In some extreme measures to hinder reproduction of the weak and socially unfit in Australia, eugenic programs were formed. The sole aim of such programs was to remove the unworthy and undesirable genes from the better adapted genes in the population. Laws and directions that required the weak individuals from the native tribes to be sterilized were issued and observed. During this period, which was between 1910 and 1930, many states passed sterilization laws on unfit individuals. It spread and became so popular across many states to have the non-whites sterilized. There were some laws also restricting immigration from specified areas that were believed to be unfit in the society. Some native had their children taken away from them and put under the care of whites who were deemed fit to raise children in to human beings that would be fit in the society. Social Darwinism continued and took different forms in Australia and other different parts in the world for example in Germany where the Nazi party had severe eugenic programs (Hofstadter, 1992). In the social contexts, the theory of Social Darwinism provided justification or rather excuses for some very exploitative and oppressive forms of capitalism. Workers who were of course the indigenous people of Australia were paid little amounts of money in relation to the backbreaking amount of hard work they did. The labor unions and similar organization did not protect the native workers. White individual employers and big companies refused to pay the native under the justification that they were socially unfit and therefore not worth in the society (McLean Ian, 2009). Less fortunate people were regarded as weak and no donation or help was accorded to them because it would support reproduction of the socially unfit in the society which was very unethical and against the then popular theory of social Darwinism (Sakett Lee, 1996). The theory of Social Darwinism supported and led to colonialism. Colonialism was seen as a natural way to take and put in to better use, the resources that the weak and unfit individuals in the native Australia could not use, due to their inferiority in the human race (McLean Ian, 2009). In the Social Darwinian ethics, it was inevitable to seize land and other resources from the unfit natives, who were not in a position to make good and productive use of the resources due to their limitations as inferior genes in the population. It was against nature to let the resources stay idle in the natives’ hands, and it was ethical, proper to utilize the resources (Numbers &Stenhouse, 2001). The concept of adaptation from the social Darwinism also applied in military actions. People were made to fight so that the fit would survive. The casualties and losers would be deemed as the unfit and thus justified to be injured or killed (McLean Ian, 2009). This gave way to brutal actions by the colonial government officials and cruel tactics on the natives. They would get rid of the natives by whatever oppressive way and write them off as unfit beings. The concept and ideas purported by the Social Darwinism theory in Australia had many implications. It fueled colonization of the native by the white skinned, degrading of human races and exploitation. The natives were deemed to be inferior to the white skinned and thus it was morally accepted among the white to grab and seize the natives resources (Sakett Lee, 1996). However, there is one positive impact, it can be said that it discouraged people from being beggars because the theory suggest that those who were not self sufficient and productive be done away with. Many structure such as school were also constructed to cater for the fit and strong in the society (McLean Ian, 2009). Capitalism was as well promoted in the Social Darwinism theory; it allowed for the survival for the fittest in terms of the rich were free to keep accumulating some more wealth, while the poor and unfit did not get the chance to. Social Darwinism is a theory that had been put forward to advance the oppression of the indigenous people of Australia. These people’s rights were deprived under the justification of the concept of adaptation from the theory (Sakett Lee, 1996). Cruel and inhuman actions were taken against the natives and the whites who were strong and powerful would regard that as the natives own issues and problem from the natural result of their unfit and inferior status. The theory got every one struggling and fighting hard to be fittest to survive. It was however a justification to have the native peoples resources taken away by the strong, powerful colonialists. References: Numbers Ronald & Stenhouse John. (2001). Disseminating Darwinism: The Role of Place, Race, Religion, and Gender, New York: Cambridge University Press. McLean Ian. (2009). White Aborigines: Identity Politics in Australian Art, New York: Cambridge University Press Hofstadter Richard. (1992).Social Darwinism in American Thought, United States: Beacon Press Sackett Lee. (1996). Whitefella Comin': Aboriginal Responses to Colonialism in Northern Australia. Australia: University of Sydney Read More