Theory: it's a word that's confused with uninvestigated opinion, so politically if one doesn't want to accept the implications of Evolution or Global Warming, "theory" is supposed to disqualify any further discussions.
From Wikipedia:
"Social Darwinism is a term commonly used for theories of society that emerged in England and the United States in the 1870s, seeking to apply the principles of Darwinian evolution to sociology and politics.[1] It especially refers to notions of struggle for existence being used to justify social policies which make no distinction between those able to support themselves and those unable to support themselves. The most prominent form of such views stressed competition between individuals in laissez-faire capitalism but it is also connected to the ideas of eugenics, scientific racism, imperialism,[2] fascism, Nazism and struggle between national or racial groups."
I get that, and chiefly as a member of a group that's been used on, identify with the concern. However, with global warming there will come a point where there's "no turning back" and no starships to Exodus us to the stars.
The Bible has also been twisted to justify slavery as well as a perpetual curse of servitude. Mainstream Mormonism has since repudiated the notion of lighter skin being a sign that you did something right in the pre-existence during the war in heaven, and dark skin, well...we were "neutral"; we did not pick sides, our skin a sign of "the curse" (Mormon eschatology). Before the 2008 presidential elections, a friend forwarded a photo from England of an American riding a Harley. On the back of his T-shirt, this statement: "N----r please! It's the WHITE HOUSE!"
Any dominate group that wants to remain dominant latches on to the most convienient theory that justifies their already set opinions of themselves. It is a pathology that self-esteem is only justified by another groups subjugation and misery.
Pythagoras would have a time today!
Comments