This week's discussion was on Social Darwinism.  Each section was divided into two groups who then prepared arguments either in favor of or against Social Darwinism.  Then the class came together and "debated" the issue.  SOme of the arguments made are listed below.
In favor:
produce "super" race
economic gain -----> laissex faire, not socialism
does not continue to support lower classes at cost of better classes
women more involved
fewer children; better cared for
stops overpopulation of inferior classes
natual selectio ----> adabtability to environment
laziness is weakness
focus on individual
promotes necessary organization

Against:
natual selection allows for mutation or adaptation
who gets to decide?
who defines "classes"?
adaptation possible with right circumstances
impossible to produce super race
natural selection (Darwin) not a conscious choice
will lead to military strife
advancement of one group, not society as a whole
separation of classes not "natural"
 

To further understand the issue and the materials read for this week, look over the questions below.  They discuss Darwin's ideas about natural selection, how the Social Darwinists modified his ideas, and what Social Darwinism meant for nineteenth century.  Finally, they talk about how some of the ideas of Social Darwinism have been seen in the twentieth century.

How does natural selection work?  Examples?
        -rejects traits that are harmful or unnecessary for the species and preserves what is good
        -development of opposable thumb
        -in future may no longer have pinky toe, tailbone, appendix because no longer necessary for survival

In what ways could the term "fittest" apply to human societies?
        -wealthiest, strongest, smartest, most attractive, most courageous, most loyal, most sympathetic, etc.

What problems are there with these applications of the term "fittest?"
        -who determines attractiveness?
        -what about someone that is born into a "undesireable" group/position and later "gets out" of it

Why were the Social Darwinists concerned about the less fit members of society?
        -their numbers would be so much larger than the superior members of society that the superior members would not be able to increase/keep up

How did the Social Darwinists' ideas of race differ from ours?

How would a Social Darwinist define the origin and purpose of the state?
        -formed and led by superior portions of society
        -to ensure that inferiors are not allowed to overrun superiors

What is the Social Darwinist's definition of imperialism?  How did they justify it?
        -extending the rule of a superior race/people over an inferior one
        -it was their duty, as the superior race, to take control of inferior races
        -superior races are more capable of running and organizing society/civilization
        Eugenics (science of improving the qualities of a breed of species by careful selection pf parents)
 

In addition to these questions, we talked about twentieth century manifestations of these ideas including the Holocaust, discrimination against blacks and immigrants in the U.S., American actions in the Philippines, white control in South Africa, Japanese internment camps, racial profiling, etc.  These are not all perfect examples of Social Darwinism, but it is important to look at an idea that many of us may think existed only in the nineteenth century and realize that some of its influences still exist.  This is a good example of how the ideas we talk about in this class are connected and build on each other.  Western civilization today is in many ways a product of all of the concepts we have discussed so far as well as those that we will address in the final segment of the class.