Going to have to learn more about this adventure
The five-year voyage of the BEAGLE was the basis for all Darwin’s later work; but it also turned him from a friendly idler into the greatest scientist of his century.
This is another form of “going back to the beginning”. What was his original experience of “nature” like?
The behavior of the tribalists of South America led him to conclude that he would have preferred to have descended from baboons.
I remember in the early 2000s when the theory of evolution was the height of controversy in a still-Christian nation. It’s not an exaggeration to say that today’s leftists are nearly identical to those Creationists. Instead of God it’s “nature” for them (if you pressure them). “Nature” created humans to have the same brains.
Darwin is another one like “Roger” who if you even say his name people get too emotional to reason. They’re just human beings, relax. It’s a guy who sailed on a ship. One note he made about those South Americans that seems highly relevant was that as soon as the Christians left they immediately returned to their ways. They were able to be somewhat civilized with them around.
I certainly get this feeling when I’m in Detroit
Viewing such men, one can hardly make one’s self believe that they are fellow-creatures, and inhabitants of the same world.
I really wonder what extremes they’d revert to without other races around to coddle them. Charlie says those aboriginal Argentinians devoured their old women before they killed their dogs.
To the surprise of no one, google is littered with this sort of attitude
That’s not an anthropologist, that’s a creationist. A primitive religionist who calls himself a scientist (which–many such cases).
You can’t say it about many people, that the present political order is the deliberate inversion of his thinking. What he represents, it’s the direct opposite.
I remind you, if you’re interested in “non-modern” interpretations of Darwin if you toggle “free” on play.google you will find lots of old books.
One recent article I clicked, the lady says she was “traumatized” by The Voyage of the Beagle. Can’t expect objectivity from someone like that, needless to say.
Unsurprisingly, not finding much in the way of “interesting” secondary literature on him from recent times.
Ah, one from 1981
In Germany, more than anywhere else, Darwinism was a sensational success.
He wrote on orchids and coral too. He’s probably as accurate about those species as he is about human species.
So much of today’s leftism is about “making a statement” that Darwin was wrong. That’s all it is, a statement, and to some of us it’s a statement that you don’t mind having savages for children. Without whites around they’ll probably go back to eating Grandma.
Who is it really that’s taken on the western style?
While many are adept in speaking English if you look closely I find that they tend to betray their humble origins.
If you’re around non-whites too much you probably forget this.
to hate the very sound of their voices, so much trouble did they give us… On leaving some place we have said to each other, Thank Heaven, we have at last fairly left these wretches!
You just get used to being around people you hate. That’s “progress”!
Anyway, this all was the first impression of the greatest scientist of his century. Seems like the realistic impression to have.
If you’re interested in how he later developed that first impression, some consider chapter 7 of his mature work, The Descent of Man, to be his most “traumatizing”.
Something you should understand
the transition between the pre- and post-Darwinian eras was a seamless one indeed.
He wasn’t the first, and he wasn’t the last, traumatizer. And you probably haven’t heard the names of many of those before and after him. Click here if you want to learn some of those names of people with an arguably more realistic “impression” of the species of the world.
Here is Charlie saying something innocent that probably won’t be perceived as innocent
Constancy of character is what is chiefly valued and sought for by naturalists.
The great majority of non-whites cannot be educated to be civilized. Thus my coethnics seem to have given up and taken on uncivilized worldviews. The constancy of THEIR character is to pity. What is a non-white? A breeding and eating-machine that cannot appreciate fine art or any other mark of high civilization, including its greatest scientists hint hint.
The nature of being was revealed in this exploration