The idea of Social Darwinism started with British philosopher Herbert Spencer, who began advocating the idea of “survival of the fittest” seven years before Darwin’s theory of evolution was published. Spencer believed that society progressed as individuals competed, which would result in the most talented and most qualified people emerging at the top and those who were unfit appearing as the lower classes. This meant the government should not aid the poor because these people were shown to be unfit and therefore should not be helped to survive. By refusing to help them, the weak would be prevented from passing on their negative attributes to the following generations, which would eventually lead to the development and evolution of society.
During the Gilded Age, politicians and wealthy industrialists began promoting the idea of Social Darwinism to further their own agendas. For example, it was used to advance laissez-faire capitalism, which was the policy of letting the economy take its own course without restricting it, by explaining that regulations would halt the development of the economy by preventing the fittest from taking control. This idea that a lack of regulations would be beneficial prevented workers from getting rights such as limited hours or minimum wages because the courts often shared this view of Social Darwinism. Regulations on working conditions were often seen as harmful because they were perceived to be coddling the weak and preventing the natural progression. This allowed leaders in big business to continue to suppress the constant petitions for workers to have more rights.
Social Darwinism was also used to justify anti-immigration, racism, and imperialism. By saying that human societies evolved, many became convinced that immigrants, who were usually not white anglo-saxon protestants, came from less evolved societies which therefore meant they were lesser human beings. This idea of superior societies also led many Americans to conclude that they were superior to other nations and therefore deserved to be able to take control of them. This became apparent in the cases of Hawaii, Cuba, Puerto Rico, and the Philippines. Social Darwinism was used to say that America could take over because it was superior and therefore could civilize the supposedly lesser peoples of these countries.
http://www.crf-usa.org/bill-of-rights-in-action/bria-19-2-b-social-darwinism-and-american-laissez-faire-capitalism.html
http://www.ushistory.org/us/36e.asp
https://www.khanacademy.org/humanities/ap-us-history/period-6/apush-gilded-age/a/social-darwinism-in-the-gilded-age
Social Darwinism, I agree, was one of the main reasons why there was a lack of progressive American rights in the economic field. When an idea like Social Darwinism, or simply the survival of the fittest, then there cannot be any chance for those below those at the top that can outperform the likes of Carnegie and Morgan. Rockefeller especially justified his reason to have a monopolistic corporation like Standard Oil by it being the only one that needed to exist because it was the biggest. That goes besides the fact that he happened to start drilling and turning his company into a single elevator production at the right time, and thus was able to reap insane benefits by being one of the first oil companies to implement vertical integration. He might have not been the best if he was later to the party in oil than other people.
ReplyDeleteSource: http://www.icr.org/article/darwins-influence-ruthless-laissez-faire-capitalis/
It's very interesting how something so simple as a scientific discovery can have huge consequences. A simple observation on evolution has lead to many injustices, including the ones mentioned above. Furthermore, Social Darwinism is prominent throughout all of history. Looking towards World War II, Social Darwinism was used to justify the actions of Hitler and the Holocaust as a whole. Hitler believed in the idea that there was a superior race and those of the inferior race should be separated. This in turn lead to the mindset that if certain groups were not fit enough to survive, it was only right for them to be exterminated. It's very frustrating how something that wasn't intended to be used to further ideas of inequality could be completely misinterpreted and used further such ideas. Social Darwinism is a reminder that the same concept can have multiple interpretations that have completely different connotations.
ReplyDeleteSource : https://answersingenesis.org/charles-darwin/racism/darwinism-and-the-nazi-race-holocaust/
This comment has been removed by the author.
ReplyDeleteI agree with Sophia that Social Darwinism has been used to justify many actions outside of Gilded Age economics. For example, actions during the Age of Imperialism, both in America and Europe, were sparked by personal greed, and justified by this idea of a superior race, or group. One specific example of this idea of Social Darwinism during Imperialism was the idea of the "White Man's Burden" which was employed as a justification for the injustices dealt to foreign peoples. In the Congo, the Belgian government proceeded to exploit the local peoples, treating them like savages and working them like slaves. They justified their conquest through this idea of "the white man's burden" and Social Darwinism.
ReplyDeletehttps://www.britannica.com/place/Belgian-Congo