Proponents of social Darwinism

The Discussion Board (DB) is part of the core of online learning. Classroom discussion in an online environment requires the active participation of students and the instructor to create robust interaction and dialogue. Every student is expected to create an original response to the open-ended DB question as well as engage in dialogue by responding to posts created by others throughout the week. At the end of each unit, DB participation will be assessed based on both level of engagement and the quality of the contribution to the discussion.

At a minimum, each student will be expected to post an original and thoughtful response to the DB question and contribute to the weekly dialogue by responding to at least two other posts from students. The first contribution must be posted before midnight (Central Time) on Wednesday of each week. Two additional responses are required after Wednesday of each week. Students are highly encouraged to engage on the Discussion Board early and often, as that is the primary way the university tracks class attendance and participation.

The purpose of the Discussion Board is to allow students to learn through sharing ideas and experiences as they relate to course content and the DB question. Because it is not possible to engage in two-way dialogue after a conversation has ended, no posts to the DB will be accepted after the end of each unit.

Address the following questions with your classmates:

• What are some of the philosophies that influenced Latin America? In what way did they impact the cultures of Latin America?
• What contributions to society did folk and elite caudillos bring to Latin American society?
• What impact did the encroachment of Europeans have upon the New World

Herbert Spencer is credited with the development of the theory of social Darwinism. Spencer’s ideas about how society was meant to function were already developed by the time Charles Darwin’s On the Origin of Species by Means of Natural Selection, or the Preservation of Favored Races in the Struggle for Life was published, but the use of the word race in the title played into Spencer’s ideas perfectly and allowed him to make a connection, however unintended by Darwin, between the species in the publication and human races. Proponents of social Darwinism suggested that, among humans, those most fit to survive should survive, and those less equipped should not be assisted to overcome their challenges.

This could

 

be applied in social contexts and to large-scale government actions. Colonial imperialism in the Americas and Africa was justified under this theory (Sayre, 2010). The theory suggested that it was through genetic superiority and better environmental adaptations that the people from European nations had come into powerful positions in the world. It justified the abuses of African and Native American populations by Europeans because the superior population was meant to be dominant. Warfare, slavery, and the colonization of more land by force were acceptable under this theory.

Darwinism and social Darwinism are not to be confused. Charles Darwin’s work was completely separate from the theory originally promoted by Herbert Spencer. The two theories have very little in common, aside from the use of Darwin’s name. Darwin himself was well aware that the way natural selection happens among other species is not the way humans select their mates. The unintended connection that has developed between the two theories has lead, in some cases, to a misunderstanding of Darwin’s original theory and its limitations.

Empire as Duty

In 1898 and 1899, the poem “White Man’s Burden” by Rudyard Kipling was published in various magazines. The poem can be interpreted multiple ways from a variety of perspectives, but among the common interpretations is one that suggests the poem provides an example of the idealized role of the paternalistic benefactor that many Europeans understood themselves to have in the areas they integrate into their growing empires (like religion).

The poem consists of multiple stanzas that encourage the reader to assume his or her duty and do what is required to help the clearly less-fortunate individuals living in the colonized areas of the empire, but it is evident that the writer does not see a reciprocal role for members of the culture. In stanza three, Kipling (n.d.) writes (as cited in About.com, n.d.),

Take up the White Man’s burden–
The savage wars of peace–
Fill full the mouth of Famine
And bid the sickness cease;
And when your goal is nearest
The end for others sought,
Watch sloth and heathen Folly
Bring all your hopes to nought.

The duty of the readers or people to whom the poem is directed, a White person of privilege, is clear. They are to fight the wars for, provide food for, and heal those residing within their territories. Also clear is an underlying assumption that there will be neither gratitude nor reciprocity from the peoples coming to live under the growing empire. In fact, according to Kipling’s poem, the “White man” is to expect that, once all this work has been accomplished for the betterment of others, the recipients of this assistance will squander it, leaving unfulfilled hopes.

This view of the imperial powers acting as guardians or helpful father figures to the civilizations they were taking over (which was nearly opposite that of social Darwinism), was also prevalent during the same time period. Each suggested a way to deal with the peoples within the growing empires of the day, but neither suggested the conquered peoples should have an integral role in the process.

References

Sayre, H. M. (2010). Discovering the humanities. Upper Saddle River, NJ: Prentice Hall-Pearson.

Kipling, R. (n.d.). White Man’s Burden. Retrieved from http://quotations.about.com/cs/poemlyrics/a/The_White_Mans_.htm

This unit will deal with social hierarchy, based on the class-color continuum, and social stratification that developed in and around this tendency. It will also consider how industrial development resulted from the ideals of the dominant classes of people and how it, in turn, affected the disenfranchised people of South America.

Latin America is comprised of hierarchical cultures and societies based largely on the class-color continuum and the social stratification that developed in and around this tendency. Industrial development resulted from the ideals of the dominant classes of people which, in turn, affected the disenfranchised people of South America. Let’s look at these ideas more closely.

The term complex society addresses the social classes of people in a specified region and the roles of power and control in that region. In South America that social hierarchy is most often dependent on skin color. But, there is another power construct at work, which plays an active role in society, that of social stratification. In this case, stratification refers to the layers of people in a society. These social operating units include families, communities, sets of communities, political parties, military establishments, and government units. Each of these strata controls a certain amount of the environment, although some exercise more control than others. Inequalities of power then develop and confrontations inevitably occur resulting in different levels of articulation. The individuals who participate in these confrontations eventually occupy a sort of representational status for their particular strata and different relationships between the strata form.

After the struggle for independence in South America, the caudillo emerged. There were two major groups of these strong leaders, the elite and the popular, but both served to usher in a reign of stability and prevent further disintegration of nation states. They encouraged and enabled the building of infrastructure and legitimatized their rule through the endorsement of the military, landowning aristocracy, and the Roman Catholic Church. In fact, many caudillos had served in the army and understood the importance of the institution to either enforce or destroy a ruler.

The elites were those who enjoyed social, economic, and political control. Within the elite strata, two political attitudes predominated: liberalism and conservatism. The liberals mirrored progressive attitudes while the conservatives held fast to traditional colonial values. Neither group was interested in the plight of the commoners or in the redistribution or restructuring of social, land, and labor systems.

In many Latin American nations, the mestizos and mulattoes formed the largest social classes, but it was not until the latter decades of the nineteenth century, that they were able to articulate their position in the power construct of the country. On the other hand, even though slavery was abolished in 1888, slaves and their descendants still remained in the lowest social class along with the Indians who were still enslaved by the labor markets and debt servitude.

While the growth of Latin America was shaped by the elites, they generally failed to see the big picture. The miles of railroads did not link up the principal cities of their nations eliminating the possibility of unification. Loans were taken out to fund further “modernization” advancements and the government was forced to budget even greater sums to pay the interest.

Larger nations were able to stabilize and began to industrialize by forming their own factories to support internal demands. This enabled them to develop more balanced economies, base them on a multitude of products, and protect them from the fluctuation in European markets. These advances helped to form a very small middle class of mestizos and mulattoes who were able to rise into the new social strata.

This unit considers the economic strains, changes, and reforms that have occurred in Latin America, the development of cities and finally, asks the question, “What will Latin America look like in the future?”  In other words, we have examined its history, now we must consider its future.

Historically, Latin America has been economically dependent on the export of agricultural and mineral commodities. Early trade attitudes were initially defined by the “physiocrat doctrine” with regard to competition.  Observing the wealth accumulated by trade in economic markets, countries began to vie for free trading privileges.  Unfortunately, they competed against each other and flooded the market causing the prices and profits for farmers to fall.  This was to set a precedent for economic activity in Latin America.  According to E. Bradford Burns in Latin America, “development became more illusion than reality over the years.” 

Several attempts have been made over the last 4+ decades to form trading blocs within Latin America.  The goals have been to unify the countries and protect the markets from outside competition and to form larger internal markets. In 1960, a trade association known as the “Latin American Free Trade Association”, or “LAFTA”, now known as the “Latin American Integration Association”, or “LAIA”, was developed to encourage trade within Latin America.  Fostering trade between the countries, they held, would eliminate some of the dependency incurred by separate nations trading outside the continent with foreign competitors.  Then, in 1969, the “Andean Pact” was signed with similar goals in mind.  Next, in 1992 the “North American Free Trade Agreement” was signed by the leaders of three countries: George Bush of the United States, Brian Mulroney of Canada, and Carlos Salinas de Gortari of Mexico.  Finally, another trade agreement was prompted by Brazil based on the North Atlantic Free Trade Organization and was called the “South American Free Trade Area, or “SAFTA”.  While economic frontiers were experiencing change, so were the population centers of Latin America. 

Industrialization and modernization accompanied the growth of cities in size, number, and population.  Cities became increasingly more important in each nation as the “hub” of cultural activity, government, commerce, transportation, communication, and education.  Job opportunities and housing were among the many lures that encouraged the migration of peoples to the developing cities.  Some cities experienced population migrations that they were unable to support.  In fact, overpopulation led to more competition for job opportunities, less housing, poverty, increased crime, the rapid spread of illness and disease, and the break down of the family unit.  On the other hand, cities also provided the opportunity for upward mobility, job training, job opportunities for women, and participation in commercial activity and trading.  It is important not to assume a “golden age” mentality about the growth of cities, however, since education was still basically a privilege of the elite, countries have remained dependent on an export economy, landowners have remained in the top realm of the social and economic strata, and color still defines social class.

So, the question remains as it always has and always will:  What will happen next?  Although Democracy has been introduced to Latin America, will it remain? Is unification the answer? Will Communism or Socialism work? How will the social and economic gaps between the “haves” and “have-nots” be bridged?  One may say, “education is key.””  Another may answer, look around the United States, has it helped?” Today, the “Other” has been given a voice.  It is imperative that this voice is used.