Considering some of the horrible things that were done shortly after this understanding in the early 20th century, part of me is glad that the understanding did not arise in the 18th, a time when the societal protections learned during WWI were not yet in place.
> With savages, the weak in body or mind are soon eliminated; and those that survive commonly exhibit a vigorous state of health. We civilised 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 civilised 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.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Descent_of_Man,_and_Select...
Galton, the "Father of Eugenics" was already proposing eugenics related things in the 1860's, and by the 1900-1910 it was getting into full swing in the US.
One reason I wish Wallace got more credit (apart from, you know, deserving it).
Nice try, but the fact that he uses "civilized" and "savages" in the context of natural selection suggests he believes their condition can't be changed by training or education.
I'm other words, calling it savages was probably the PC way of the time to refer to inferior people.
Darwin was racist as was usual in his time (Wallace was not) but in this case he is talking about culture, not ancestry.
Where he is wrong is that "savages" also look after the weak. There is even evidence that hominids earlier than modern humans looked after the weak.
> I'm other words, calling it savages was probably the PC way of the time to refer to inferior people.
They were not bothered about being PC at the time. He would not have hesitated to say inferior.