“if there is a case against honouring deceased luminaries such as Galton, Fisher, Linnaeus and Hume because of their views on race and/or eugenics, then there is a case against honouring Darwin as well. I myself am in favour of honouring all these luminaries”
(Excerpted with permission from the author, from Medium.com, July 7, 2019)
Recent weeks have witnessed the defenestration not only of Confederate generals, slave-traders, colonialists, Founding Fathers and Union generals, but of many academic luminaries too. The following scientists and philosophers have all been subjected to actual or attempted defenestrations: Sir Francis Galton; Sir Ronald Fisher; Karl Pearson; Clarence Cook Little; Edward Drinker Cope; J. Marion Sims; H. C. Yarrow; Carl Vogt; Carl Linnaeus; and David Hume.
In a recent op-ed, I argued that even Charles Darwin might not be safe, given that his writings “contain ample statements that would put him far beyond the pale of what is now considered acceptable.” Here I want to expand on this argument. More specifically, I want to show that—based on the criteria that have been invoked to cancel other deceased luminaries—there is no reason to believe that Darwin is immune from cancellation. By this I mean that there may soon be an attempt to remove a monument to Darwin, or to rename something that is named after him.
Reviewing the attempts that have been made to cancel other deceased luminaries, there are two areas of Darwin’s writings that could be considered particularly “problematic”.
Read the Full Article, 22 paragraphs, at Medium.com.
Dr. Noah Carl is a British sociologist and researcher in IQ, and intelligence related subjects. He was a professor at St. Edmunds College, Cambridge University. He has a BA in Human Sciences, an MSC in Sociology and a degree in Sociology from the University of Oxford. He has written for Mankind Quarterly edited by a friend of this site, Dr. Edward Dutton (Jolly Heretic on YouTube).