Racism and Darwins Theory of Evolution - Essay Example

Using Darwin’s theory of evolution as the premise of his argument, Pearson’s racist ideas were short in the arm to the already existing notion of European superiority over the other races. His, therefore, provided a scientific basis to the claim. This may sound offensive today but, not then when it was common knowledge, or so people were made to believe.

Pearson (20-21) argues that the black race is a bad stock which he doubts can evolve to a higher type by them. He talks of a higher state of civilization which has been achieved through the struggle of race with a race where the physically and mentally fitter race survives. Thus in the struggle between nations, the fit (militarily superior) always emerges victoriously. This then calls for and justifies the domination of inferior races with superior ones through the use of military coercion. This sentiment is echoed by Spielvogel (520) who says that domination is to show the strength and virility of the superior race. Putting superior and inferior races together to live in one soil according to Pearson (23) will only yield a relationship of a master and a servant or that of a slave-owner and a slave. Again, this statement not only justifies European domination over other races but also calls for imperialistic exploitation of the so-called inferior races. It is undoubtedly true that Pearson seemed to be glorifying violence and its application on what he termed as the inferior races.

The inferior races are so unfit even to fully exploit the resources in their environment, and as such Pearson (23), calls for their expulsion out of such lands by the superior race. This idea resonates with that of other Darwinists who posit that the inferior races have demonstrated their unfitness by losing out in the socio-economic struggle, all thanks to heredity endowment (Chase et al, 581). Unfit as they are, Pearson (32) suggests that this bad stock ought not to have existed at all, and to prove their worth, they should go to new lands as miners, cowboys and storekeepers. But, he cautiously warns of the mixing of the races. Superior race must eject the inferior ones and not mix or live alongside them lest it degenerates itself (45).

The call for a homogenous superior race is clearly evident in Pearson’s work as he offers this as a solution to the problem in South Africa then: All black men in the fields and mines to be replaced by whites and the Kaffir are pushed back towards the equator (50). The unhealthy social status in South Africa then was attributed to, from Pearson’s racist point of view, the mixing of the bad and good stock. Gobineau referred to as the father of racism appears to be in concordance with Pearson in this. He argued that the intermingling of races would untimely lead to the downfall of western civilization (Chase et al., 593).

In his scientific view of a nation, Pearson (46) argues that an organized whole nation is kept up to a high pitch of internal efficacy by recruiting its numbers from the better stock and kept to a high pitch of external efficacy by war with inferior races and with equal races. The contest here is over trade routes, food supply and sources of raw materials. By this, he implies that the Europeans can use their military strength to rob Africans and other so-called inferior races, and even to instill fear and submission. Consequently, the latter being weary and ‘inferior’ has to undergo immense suffering.

The superiority of the Europeans gives them the privilege and right to work the unutilized earth resources irrespective of where they are (48). This may have worked then, but not today where the concern for humanity and respect for individuals and sovereignty of nations is upheld.
It is no doubt that it was the pursue of the above ‘right’ that Europeans annexed as many colonies in Africa and beyond and shamelessly exploited the resources in these regions for their own good at the expense of the inferior races. This by no standards is morally justified.

Pearson (64) admits that mankind advances through pain and suffering only, which I don’t deny. But, he brings in the racist twist to it. The path of progress he writes is strewn with the wreck of nations: traces are everywhere to be seen of the hecatombs of inferior races, and of victims who found not the narrow way to perfection. Pearson argues that the death of these people is the stepping stone to man’s higher rise to the intellectual and deeper emotional life of today.

It is vividly clear that there are individuals who stretched Darwin’s theory of evolution beyond the limits that he, Darwin did not work on. These are the social Darwinists who applied Darwin’s theory to social and economic aspects of life. Karl Pearson is one such example. From his work, Pearson uses this theory to glorify war and justify brutality and ill-treatment of the ‘unfit’ in the society sparking off a greater height of racism. His work may have been relevant then, but not in today’s world where many may treat it with contempt and indignation it deserves, as efforts have been by nations and world bodies to unite the world as a whole.