Darwin would have no way of [b]knowing[/b] what that term meant. He avoided speaking with black people (where the slang originated) because he thought we were "degraded and inferior".
He was a notorious white supremacist.
Coincidentally, white supremacists see being "woke" (aware and empathetic) as a bad thing [b]now[/b], too. 😳
@bijouxbroussard My friend was not alive in 1963,nor was he[u] taught[/u] about it...but "in Alabama they loved the Governor" 🙄 Which is why it ought to be taught,its a FACT
@bijouxbroussard The events at Little Rock in 1957 were widely reported internationally - I was pretty young back then,but do remember them from the news and from TV.That famous/infamous photo of the two girls was featured on the front page of the leading newspaper here in Sydney.
@craig7 I recently read that some years later, the white girl who was yelling (Hazel Bryan) saw the iconic picture and just like in the meme, realized that she was there for the world (including her children and grandchildren) to see, as the face of hatred. It prompted her to reach out to Elizabeth Eckford with an apology. They met, and became friends.
Charles Darwin went on his famous voyage in the 1830s and he's speaking about the sub-species in question in the future tense (in this fake quote). So in order for this to be talking about about the wokes -- whatever that's supposed to mean anymore -- you'd have to believe that an entire subspecies of humans evolved in as little as one hundred and fifty years. You would have to be downright brain damaged to believe something this patently asinine.
I had ChatGPT simulate what Darwin would have said explaining the woke movement.
[quote]If I were alive today, I might view the 'woke' movement as a response to changing environmental conditions, similar to how species adapt to changing ecological niches. The movement represents a shift in social norms and values, reflecting the need for inclusivity, social justice, and equality in an increasingly diverse and interconnected world. While my scientific work focused on biological evolution, it is possible that evolutionary theory could also be applied to social and cultural phenomena. However, the applicability of my ideas to these domains is a matter of ongoing debate among scholars, and I would be interested in learning more about these discussions.[/quote]
I don't think so. Some scientists look beyond science and make less than reasonable claims about things they aren't expert in. Dawkins, Einstein and Hawking come to mind.
[quote]In 1871, one hundred and fifty years ago, Darwin published a book commonly known as The Descent of Man. The lengthy book outlined Darwin’s views regarding the origins of mankind, just as he promised to do at the end of his most well-known book, Origin of Species. The comments Darwin made in The Descent of Man regarding people who did not share his low amount of melanin in their skin were horrific. Darwin believed that eventually the higher races would replace lower races.
At some future period, not very distant as measured by centuries, the civilized races of man will almost certainly exterminate and replace throughout the world the savage races.” To Darwin, this was self-evident. If races exist, some must be better than others. If evolution occurred, then the most fit races would eventually take over, just as they did in the animal and plant realms. Darwin did not limit this sentiment to The Descent of Man. He expressed it clearly in at least two letters published by his son Francis after his death. “I look at this process as now going on with the races of man; the less intellectual races being exterminated,” Darwin wrote in a letter to Charles Lyell.
Darwin went on to define exactly what he meant by “lower races.” In describing the split between man and the apes, he wrote, “The break will then be rendered wider, for it will intervene between man in a more civilized state as we may hope, than the Caucasian and some ape as low as the baboon, instead of as at present between the negro or Australian and the gorilla.” Darwin makes it very clear that he viewed the Africans and Australians as most closely related to the apes. He was expecting that eventually these “lower” races, would be eliminated and be replaced with superior, more civilized races, widening the gap between apes and man. Were he to make any of these comments today, people would be screaming that he needed to be de-platformed. But Darwin actually went further.
We civilized men, on the other hand, do our utmost to check the process of elimination; we build asylums for the imbecile, the maimed, and the sick; we institute poor-laws; and our medical men exert their utmost skill to save the life of every one to the last moment. There is reason to believe that vaccination has preserved thousands, who from a weak constitution would formerly have succumbed to small-pox. Thus the weak members of civilized societies propagate their kind. No one who has attended to the breeding of domestic animals will doubt that this must be highly injurious to the race of man. It is surprising how soon a want of care, or care wrongly directed, leads to the degeneration of a domestic race; but excepting in the case of man himself, hardly any one is so ignorant as to allow his worst animals to breed.[/quote]
