Said many lofty things and I agree with him wholeheartedly. England owes him an apology for jailing him for freedom of speech.
But he is also evidence that intelligent men can be grossly mistaken. In his response to Booth, he of the Salvation Army, he wrote and I agree that people in jail should be treated with kindness that indeed many are not psychopaths & may not be a threat to society if rehabilitated. Where i disagree with him is in saying the weak, the ‘unfit’ should not be supported & this is based on the natural selection- let the fit survive. I think this was a gross misunderstanding of evolution on his part.
He writes, for example
He is not aware that thousands of men and women are born in every generation who are behind the age. They are types of a vanished order of mankind, relics of antecedent stages of culture. Natural selection is always eliminating them, and general Booth proposes to cuddle them, to surround them with artificial circumstances, and give them a better chance. He does not see that most of them, however propped up by the more energetic and independent, will always bear the stamp of unfitness; nor does he see that he will enable them to beget and rear a more numerous offspring of the same character.
Salvation syrup by Foote
He believes there are congenital criminals and prostitutes among other things.
I am also inclined to disagree with Booth when he writes
No change in circumstances, no revolution in social conditions, can possibly transform the nature of man
General Booth
It appears to me these gentlemen misunderstood Darwin or were among the Ryan’s of the 19th century. Or am I missing something as Mike is won’t to say?
I suppose it depends on what Booth meant by “the nature of man”. Was he referring to individuals or was he referring to the species known as Homo Sapiens. I’m quite convinced as individuals, we can and do change our nature for a multitude of reasons. Cultures and social groupings can also change, albeit at a slower pace over generations. As to the nature of our species, evolutionary changes occur too slowly for us to recognise and for practical purposes can be considered unchangeable. Our tendency to violence for example can be minimised through social/cultural conditioning, but I doubt it can be eliminated. In this respect are we any different from other animals?
LikeLiked by 1 person
He wasn’t referring to the species but to the individual. That nothing can be done to alter their circumstances. Which obviously is not the case as we have evidence of people change when their circumstances changed or their environment changed .
LikeLike
Booth and the Quakers would have been at opposite ends of the spectrum on this matter.
This speaks to my conviction:
LikeLike
On treatment of convicts, I think Foote and the Quakers would be on the same side.
LikeLike
Foote is highly critical of Booth, and I can’t locate a source that that puts Booth’s statement in context. It seems to be in contrast to many other statements by Booth. I might have been hasty in judging Booth solely from Foote’s criticism.
LikeLike
Foote’s critique of Booth must be based on a book written by Booth and Stead. I think the book deals with the general rules of the Salvation Army.
LikeLike
Man, I likes this guy! I’d hire him as my campaign manager if he were around to help me push my position that the poor, disabled, weak, and elderly should be gassed and cremated. Hell, they’re weak and lazy! Evolution agrees with me! Let’s get rid of ’em all! (BTW, I agree with you, Mak. I think this dude did not really understand evolutionary theory.)
LikeLike
Jeff, he would make a fine campaign manager. You would win the secularists votes easily.
LikeLiked by 1 person
Given the realities that modern man have created (climate change, etc..), Foote also presumes too much that modern civilization is an “advancement”. Plus, he misreads evolutionary theory in assuming that evolution IS always an advancement and not merely (no value judgment) an adjustment to circumstances.
LikeLike
You are right on both counts.
LikeLike