How much influence do you believe the book On The Origin of Species

Take this shit to /pol/
sage and report

>>7797095
It's a genuine literature related question

I think its an attempt to codify and validate the age old belief in racial supremacy, thereby gaining 'scientific' acceptance of England's shitty ways of doing things.

>>7797097
you're talking about the influence not the literature itself.

>>>/his/

>>7797135
What about this subject is upsetting you?

>>7797097
pffffffffffffffffffffffffffffffffffffffffff

>>7797084
It's not so much Darwin's influence as his relatives' influence. TH Huxley has a massive influence (for instance: Irish people aren't white is him), but the entirety of the Galton-Darwin-Huxley would need to be looked at more than Darwin's influence from Origin of Species.

Darwin's work on flowers has a lot more to do with racial supremacy or failure than Origin of the Species: it's also less influential. Galton and Darwin came up with the experiments on self inseminating flowers because they wanted to know if the incestuous breeding between the Galtons, Darwins, and Huxleys was leading to their intellectual supremacy or decline when Darwin was about to marry his cousin. The experiment showed it was probably a failing line, which is why later generations revisions of TH Huxley's racial divisions probably had less influence, despite their arguable increase in brilliance across the generations. [It should be noted that Darwin means something else by race than the distinction taken by the Bulldog.]

Julian Huxley's work on clades and eugenics is probably the more pervasive influence, despite being a quieter influence and more academic in nature than Darwin's or TH Huxley's populist renown, and more closely models racial supremacy than Darwin's faltering from incest model or TH Huxley's antiFenian distinctions. The United States v. Bhagat Singh Thind decision of 1923 shows the influence Julian Huxley and HG and GP Wells' philosophies on life would gain more traction in the coming years from the change of disposition about race since the earlier Huxley and Darwin.

By the time Charles Galton Darwin predicts the failure of The Next Million Years, the family's influence has passed its day. Julian, I'd argue then, is the last hoorah and more influential than those he supersedes; his and the Wells' theories are closer to those ideas which gained traction than Darwin's influences on the matter.

>tl;dr- not much, you populist uneducated scum

>>7797211
Seems like a significant contribution to me

>>7797586
Not significant enough to gain traction, which is why OP uses TH Huxley's definitions of a race not Darwin's.

>>7797143
>>>/his/

File: 51IO8MYge1L._SL1082_.jpg (40KB, 333x500px) Image search: [Google]

40KB, 333x500px

Pic related

>>7797084

Singling out OTOOS for this sort of "critique" (if it can be called that) misses the point that there was an enormous trend at that time towards rationalising all public policy through recourse to science, which is a trend that still happens today, though in a more subtle way. The science of social darwinism was junk science all along - they may as well have justified their genocidal policies by recourse to phrenology, and probably would have done were Darwin not available. It was just that Darwin's theory was the strongest, so it was used in propaganda.