Although Spencer coined the phrase “survival of the fittest” several years before Darwin, he accepted Darwin’s argument that the process of natural selection as it happens in the biological world. Spencer argues that the same process occurs in the social world and he looked at society from the same perspective, agreeing that as plants and animals adapt progressively and positively to their social environment, so do social institutions. He argues that if there are no impediments or interruptions to this progression, the organisms (whether people, plants or animals) that were “fit” would survive whereas those that were “unfit” would eventually die out. Spencer applies this concept of the “fittest” to capitalism and political power. To be successful in business is no different than a lion eating its prey for food; it is just the way it is in the world. Those that failed in business (the poor) were considered “unfit” and should be treated that way. For example the ultra-rich are also considered the masters of capitalism. They got to be at that level by exploiting the workers ass...
All individuals have different paths and life goals. It is true that individuals may start out with more advantages than others, but it should not be used as a limitation to others. Mantsios lists several realities discussing the different levels of opportunity for Americans. In these realities, he describes that wealth and our economic status is important in order to reach success. In one of his realities, Mantsios discussed the privileges within inheritance laws stating: “…Americans do not have an equal opportunity to succeed, […]. Inheritance laws provide built-in privileges to the offspring of the wealthy and add to the likelihood of their economic success while handicapping the chances for everyone else” (392). It appears as if he only believes success comes out of extreme wealth, and if someone is not, they’re disadvantaged and will ultimately be less successful than others. Mantsios talks only in extremes; he discusses the very rich, the very poor and how each affects each other, while simultaneously arguing that there is little to no chance for those in the middle or lower class to grow and become successful. In contrast, Jay-Z discusses how he did not let the obstacles he faced, or his economic status limit him. He is quoted saying, “don’t let [society] diminish your accomplishment or dim your shine” (Packer 361). Here, he is taking a much more positive approach, stating that individuals should not limit their success based on their social class. Class should not be a tool used to limit individuals and their success. To say that an individual born into the upper class will just coast through life without hardship is untrue. In the same respect, to say that an individual born into lower or middle class will have no chance at success, is just as untrue. We all face different levels of hardship in life, therefore condemning an individual because they have a leg up or down in
At this time, Vanderbilt had emerged as a top leader in the railroad industry during the 19th century and eventually became the richest man in America. Vanderbilt is making it abundantly clear to Americans that his only objective is to acquire as much wealth as possible even if it is at the expense of every day citizens. Another man who echoed such sentiments is Andrew Carnegie. In an excerpt from the North American Review, Carnegie takes Vanderbilt’s ideas even further and advocates for the concentration of business and wealth into the hands of a few (Document 3). Carnegie suggests that such a separation between the rich and the poor “insures survival of the fittest in every department” and encourages competition, thus, benefiting society as a whole. Carnegie, a steel tycoon and one of the wealthiest businessmen to date, continuously voiced his approval of an ideology known as Social Darwinism which essentially models the “survival of the fittest” sentiment expressed by Carnegie and others. In essence, he believed in widening inequalities in society for the sole purpose of placing power in the hands of only the most wealthy and most
I will analyze the question of “How did William Edward Forster contribute to the Education Act of 1870 in England?” How he contributed to the act and what changes he did within the act will show how the act became a new advantage in England for the middle-working class. A speech made by William Edward Forster about the Education Act and a memorandum of October 21, 1869 will be used to discuss his contribution and all the provisions made to the act. The book The Elementary Education Act 1870 by Thomas Preston can be great help because it focuses on the Education Act only. For this question, it is best to start by researching about W.E. Forster and the Education Act of 1870 itself. The contribution of W.E. Forster to the act benefited a lot of families and children themselves because they could get an education for free.
Mantsios defends his claim by sharing the four myths and opposing seven realities of the American dream of equal opportunity. Then comparing three profiles of people from upper, middle, and lower classes, then by proving the correlation between educational attainment and classes. In a country with democratic principles, the general public makes an impact on the country, but it’s truly governed by politicians and the incredible power of wealth. Mantsios gives up the economic spectrum break down by giving the facts on the differences between the one who have very little, a lot and not enough money. One myth that Mantsios makes in his essay is how “all Americans do not have an equal opportunities to succeed. Inheritance laws ensure a greater likelihood of success of the offspring of the wealthy” (295). The huge gap between the upper and lower classes shows the social struggle. Higher income classes have a more likely chance for successful inheritance which allows the wealth to get passed on to the offspring. However, Davidson contradicts the theory’s that were presented by Mantsios by stating “Maddie represents a large population: people who, for whatever reason, are not going to be able to leave the workforce long enough to get the skills they need”(349). However, if Maddie works hard enough she can prove Mantsios wrong. That doesn’t mean she has to go to college or get a higher education, of course, that would make everything simpler. All she has today is work her way up in the company to make something of herself to show that she can still reach her full
William Bradford was born in 1590. He was a very smart child, and taught himself how to several languages. He also studied the bible quite frequently. When he turned 18, he was in a separatist group and they broke away from the church. They went to Holland so they wouldn't be killed. He then was one of the members on the Mayflower heading to America. He made it there in December 1620.
In the documents titled, William Graham Sumner on Social Darwinism and Andrew Carnegie Explains the Gospel of Wealth, Sumner and Carnegie both analyze their perspective on the idea on “social darwinism.” To begin with, both documents argue differently about wealth, poverty and their consequences. Sumner is a supporter of social darwinism. In the aspects of wealth and poverty he believes that the wealthy are those with more capital and rewards from nature, while the poor are “those who have inherited disease and depraved appetites, or have been brought up in vice and ignorance, or have themselves yielded to vice, extravagance, idleness, and imprudence” (Sumner, 36). The consequences of Sumner’s views on wealth and poverty is that they both contribute to the idea of inequality and how it is not likely for the poor to be of equal status with the wealthy. Furthermore, Carnegie views wealth and poverty as a reciprocative relation. He does not necessarily state that the wealthy and poor are equal, but he believes that the wealthy are the ones who “should use their wisdom, experiences, and wealth as stewards for the poor” (textbook, 489). Ultimately, the consequences of
Random House, Inc. (n.d.). "Wampanoag's." . Retrieved March 3, 2011, from Dictionary.com Unabridged. Random House, Inc.: Dictionary.com Unabridged. Random House, Inc.
Darwin has two theories on the key principles of theory of evolution. One is the natural selection, a species that attains characteristics that are adapted to their environments (Darwin, Charles). The other one is survival of the fittest, which is when an individual best adapts to their environment survive to reproduce, and their genes are passed to later generat...
...s the Other, as a class of lazy bums, as a hindrance to our country. However, the power of the lower class is far greater than any power on this earth. For if we embrace and nurture this power, our country would grow like never seen before, the obstacles that threaten our livelihood would cease to exist, and our society would be represented as a model for all other nations to follow. But due to the current crisis of our country's financial, political, and social foundations, being the other in our civilization would rarely lead to achieving the American Dream. If our society was only cultivated to meet the standards of the American Dream, only then will the poor meet the standards of the rich, only then will our country defeat the long historical battle against poverty, and only then will a child born in the Bronx end up living on the Upper East Side of Manhattan.
Social Darwinism is a late 19th century term used to describe the application of British naturalist Charles Darwin’s theory of natural selection to social and political conditions. Late 19th century sociologist Herbert Spencer tried to capture the essence of social Darwinism with his phrase “survival of the fittest”. This essentially meant that the strong would rise to the top while the weak simply died out. Social Darwinists eschew social responsibility and compassion, instead believing that some people are more fit to survive than others. Many social Darwinists advocated that the government should maintain a laissez-faire, or hands off, approach when it came to regulating economic competition and alleviating social inequalities. Social Darwinism was used to justify the consolidation of the majority of wealth by a minority of Americans. The term allowed people to rationalize capitalism, imperialism, racism, and even eugenics. The wealthy believed in social Darwinism because it allowed them to justify their oppressive business tactics and low wages for their labor force. Politicians believed in it because it allowed them to justify imperialism, or expansion of the nation. Affluent Anglo-Saxons believed in social Darwinism, believing themselves to be the superior race, and used it to justify ...
In the “Gospel of wealth”, Andrew Carnegie argues that it is the duty of the wealthy entrepreneur who has amassed a great fortune during their lifetime, to give back to those less fortunate. Greed and selfishness may force some readers to see these arguments as preposterous; however, greed is a key ingredient in successful competition. It forces competitors to perform at a higher level than their peers in hopes of obtaining more money and individual wealth. A capitalist society that allows this wealth to accumulate in the hands of the few might be beneficial to the human race because it could promote competition between companies; it might ensure health care for everyone no matter their social standing, and parks and recreation could be built for the enjoyment of society.
The concept of Social Darwinism was a widely accepted theory in the nineteenth-century. Various intellectual, and political figures from each side of the political spectrum grasped the theory and interpreted it in various ways. In this paper, we will discuss three different nineteenth-century thinkers and their conception of Social Darwinism. The conservative, Heinrich von Treitschke, and liberal Herbert Spencer both gave arguments on the usefulness of competition between people on a global scale. The anarchist, Peter Kropotkin, refuted the belief of constant competition among members of the same species and emphasized mutual aid.
The term ‘Natural Selection’ was first coined by Charles Darwin in his book, ‘On the Origin of Species’ which was published in 1859. ‘Natural Selection’ is the process by which organisms having traits that empower them to modify to certain environmental pressures, climatic changes, competition for food, and rivalry for mates, will help them to survive and reproduce more than others of their kind and in this way ensures the prevalence of these advantageous traits in the subsequent generations.
Evolution is the process through which the genetic makeup of a population changes over generations and is the key focus of paleoanthropologists who specialize in the study of human evolution. Random forces surrounding a particular population have been known to contribute substantially to evolutionary change, not to undermine the impact that adaptation, “a series of beneficial adjustments of organisms to their environment”, has on evolutionary processes. Adaptation is deeply tied to the theory of evolution through a process called natural selection, first theorized by Charles Darwin during his observation of various ecosystems around the world between 1831 and 1836. Natural selection is “the principle or mechanism by which individuals having biological characteristics best suited to a particular environment survive and reproduce with greater frequency than individuals without those characteristics”. Humans are unique in their ability to adapt to changes in their environment both biologically and culturally. As humans developed and continued to expand their territories of inhabitation, an increased
Natural selection is based on the concept “survival of the fittest” where the most favourable individual best suited in the environment survive and pass on their genes for the next generation. Those individual who are less suited to the environment will die.