I’m now more than ever convinced that behind a lot of the USA anti-evolution activity is deep-seated racism: people just don’t want to accept that Negroes are of the same species as those of European descent. I don’t know how I’ll be able to demonstrate this to general satisfaction, but time (probably lots of it) will tell.

Now for Darwin himself. I’ve had a look at the UNE Library catalogue, and two of the books there are the same as two I’ve got in front of me. The earliest chronologically is at 508.31/D228j/1890 in the Dixson Library: “Journal of Researches into the natural history …” by Charles Darwin. This appears to be a 1913 reprint, while mine is a 1901 reprint. If the UNE library claim of 551 pages is a typo for 521 pages (as in my copy) they would be identical. Anyway on pages 19, 22-24, covering April 8, 14, 15, 1832 there are some passages about slavery and Darwin’s reaction to events. Chapter 19 covers Australia, and you might find this interesting, though racism isn’t mentioned. Near the end, on pages 504, 505, dated 19 August 1836, Darwin again writes of his abhorrence of slavery, and repeats one of the events he mentioned on page 24.

Now turning to “The Descent of Man” at 576.82/D228de/1981 there are two places in this you might find interesting/helpful. Several sentences in the section ‘On the birthplace and antiquity of man’ on page 199 contain Darwin’s prediction that fossils of human ancestors should be looked for in Africa, well confirmed by 20th century discoveries. But you’ll probably find chapter VII, ‘On the Races of Man’, more useful, and particularly the sentence on page 235 that ‘the dispute between the monogenists and the polygenists will die a silent and unobserved death’ once evolution is generally accepted. This has happened in anthropological/biological circles, but not yet (completely) among the general public, either in USA or Australia.

Now for some secondary literature.

The biography “Darwin” by Adrian Desmond and James Moore (576.82/D228dw)

contains references to Darwin’s views on the single origin of all humans on pages 155 and 241. There are also other references to races, racism and slavery which I haven’t looked at (yet).

I have just taken off my shelves “The Post Darwinian Controversies”, by James R. Moore and looked at ‘racism’ in the index. There are four pages listed, followed by ‘see also mankind, eugenics, slavery’.

Now for Queensland. I arrived here (with family) to take up a lecturing position in maths in April 1965. A few months later at a Staff Association meeting a resolution came up objecting to the proposed removal of a clause in the University of Queensland Act stating that no religious test could be applied for admission as either staff or students. I took part in the discussion, and the vote to oppose the removal of this clause was unanimous. During coffee/drinks afterwards one of the other academics approached me and said “From something you said I assume that you are a Christian”. I confirmed his assumption, and he said “Right. Now what is the Christian Church going to do about racism in Queensland?” He quoted a few of the laws and I was, to put it mildly, startled. One of these was that the two residential colleges for women on campus were, legally, classified as brothels.

To cut a long story short, the “Vagrants, Gaming, and Other Offences Act, 1931 to 1964” in Section 55 lists a number of things relevant to “any proceedings under this Act”. Number (v) of these is headed “Frequenting certain houses” and reads:

‘Proof that any house or part of a house wherein any female of Asiatic or Polynesian race dwells, or is lodged, or is found, is frequented by or is the resort of male persons apparently not of Asiatic or Polynesian race at any time between the hours of nine o’clock in the evening and six o’clock in the morning shall be prima facie evidence that such house or part of a house is a brothel.’

I must admit that the first time I read this I laughed. Not only is it racist, it’s also sexist (what about a house where males of Asiatic … live which are visited by females of non-Asiatic race?), and incredibly ignorant. Apparently men are supposed to visit brothels, or meet their Asian girlfriends only in the dark!

During 1966 there were so many letters to the papers and politicians that the law became a laughing stock, and the residents of the colleges took to sending the local police (and the papers) notes about invitations to men for supper after events finishing after 9 pm. The clause was repealed in 1967.

But the one which really got up my nose, and was respopnsible for me getting involved with all sorts of support groups for Aborigines, was “An Act to Promote the Well-being and Progressive Development of the Aboriginal Inhabitants of the State and of the Torres Strait Islanders.” This was Assented to 10th May, 1965. Section 21 is headed “Declaration of Aborigine, part-Aborigine or Islander to be in need of care.” The first section of this read:

‘When an Aborigine, part-Aborigine or Islander has been tried or sentenced before or by a Judge of the Supreme Court, a Circuit Court or a District Court or before or by a Magistrates Court constitute4d by a Stipendiary Magistrate such Judge or Magistrate may, whether or not such person was convicted of the offence with which he was charged, if he is satisfied that such person is in need of care under this Act, order that such care be provided.’

“Provision of care” sounds innocuous, until the rest of the Act and the accompanying Regulations are perused, when it becomes clear that the Aborigine could be taken from his family and removed to a “settlement”, and be restricted in various sorts of ways. And getting an “order for care” removed was extremely cumbersome, and would have been beyond the capabilities of most Australians, whatever their background. And all this “whether or not he was guilty”!

This part was not removed until another Act was passed in 1971. This was better in some ways, but it wasn’t until the general Anti-Discrimination Act was passed (by a Labor Government) in 1991 that racism was outlawed.

This has turned out much longer than I intended, but I get rather carried away when I start to write about any aspect of discrimination. It may be part of my Baptist heritage.

Incidentally, I believe that the Southern Baptists were the last major religious group in USA to apologise for their treatment of Negroes. If my memory is correct it was only around 20 years ago that the apology was made.

Best wishes

Ken Smith

June 2009