Thanks, Monte, for bringing this to our attention.  It seems that this history has not been publicized before.

 All the founders of Adventism were young, much younger than any officers today, and the elders usually have a more conservative perspective which often prevents new ideas from emerging.  New blood brings new ideas and often our elders dismiss any new ideas as being either unworkable or they've never been tried before--one answer that can be counted on; except all ideas were once new, even some that those same elders now reject.

It has always been those who dared to "rock the boat" who brought necessary changes, but those who forget history are bound to repeat.

Can't wait to read the book!

I find it  also paradoxical that some who are supportive of Darwin's earth history philosophy don't seem to be troubled by the fact that he found women and Africans to be inferior to white males. 

"You may have been raised on the once official myth that Adventists do not participate in civil rights protests. You owe it yourself to read the full record of reality."

Exactly how does reading or writing a book such as this  tell us WWJD if He were here? From His example I see no instance where He engaged in such tactics. Some may point to the cleansing of the Temple. But that is not in any way analogous whatever you wish to say.

Why should we have admiration for those, whatever their cause, who are lying down in front of a bus, etc.? Seeking to change things by example and voting is a preferable way for a committed SDA. I know of nothing in Scripture or EGW that endorses some of the activities described.

Truth Seeker

Thank you Monte, for sharing the important role that Adventist Blacks have played in making this world a better and more just place. It is unfortunate that many Adventists do not take seriously their civic responsibilities as citizens of an earthly kingdom that we are privileged to have a role in shaping.

Herbert Spencer was indeed a Darwinist, but he adamantly opposed Progressive, Hitlerian schemes of race hygiene and state-guided evolution. Spencer used Darwin's theories to support leaving nature alone. Others, like Hitler and progressives, used Darwin's theories as writ to interfere with human natural selection. This has been called reform Darwinism, and it prevails throughout modern progressive thinking. Spencer championed charity, women's suffrage and civil liberties. To the extent that social Darwinism stood for a free-for-all survival of the fittest, it had nothing in common with the reform Darwinism of fascism, which was anti-capitalist, anti-corporate, and believed that the state should pick winners and losers through social benefits, welfare, and eugenics. The picture London paints of Spencer has become fixed in the minds of the Left, thanks to deeply flawed and biased scholarship by the liberal historian Richard Hofstader. For a corrective to the popular Leftist history, read Roderick T. Long's "Herbert Spencer: The Defamation Continues," Aug. 28,2003, www.lewrockwell.com/orig3.html.

Progressives invented the term "social Darwinism" to describe anyone who opposed Sidney Webb's notion that the state must aggressively intervene in the reproductive order of society. Those who opposed forced sterilization of the "unfit" and poor were vilified by progressive eugenicists like Margaret Sanger for letting a "state of nature" rule among the lower classes. Remarkably, even W.E.B. DuBois embraced the Progressives' reform-Darwinism. He supported Margaret Sanger's "Negro Project," which sought to sharply curtail reproduction among "inferior" stocks of the black population. Over his long career DuBois frequently lamented that the worst blacks were overbreeding while the best were underbreeding. It was this state-controlled and guided evolution which was part of the mental furniture co-opted and put on steroids by fascism and Hitler. Lamentably, faith in the possibility of evolving to a utopia through nanny state control still thrives today among Progressives, undermining freedom, personal responsibility, charity, and morality. This is not what the champions of civil rights, who simply sought equality of opportunity under the law - to be judged by the content of their character rather than the color of their skin - fought for.  

While I am quite excited to order my copy of the book, I, like Nathan, am somewhat troubled by the Author's treatment of the term "Social Darwinism".  

"Social Darwinism" is an inflammatory term that intentionally pushes beyond the true boundaries of ideas and morality of the people to whom the label is often affixed.   In other words, a person that believes in governmental restraint might not necessarily believe in "Social Darwinism"; likewise, different people believe in many different levels of government intervention with regard to poverty, racial inequality, and gender inequality.  However, slapping someone with the label of "Social Darwinist" falsely ties them to the "nothing" pole of the extreme "all-or-nothing" false dichotomy of government's role in our lives.  As Princeton University Economics Professor Thomas Leonard wrote, the label is negative enough that "essentially no one has ever self-applied the term."   http://www.princeton.edu/~tleonard/papers/Myth.pdf (Check out his link, Nathan, I think you'll like it...)  

As much as I despise the frequent application of the terms Socialist, Fascist, Nazi, etc to our President and his supporters, perhaps this is the even-handed conservative response to the political left's inflammatory use of terms such as "Social Darwinist" in reference to their political opponents.  And how upset can people be with the intentionally incendiary commentary of people like Rush Limbaugh, Glenn Beck, Ann Coulter, etc, when the left also uses loaded terminology that brands conservatives as heartless, racist bigots who can't wait for non-whites and handicapped people to become extinct?

Perhaps progressives, in the name of progress, should be the first to surrender their use of such terminology in the political and intellectual arena.  After all, such name-calling antagonizes and polarizes people, which in turn destroys the political process and intellectual exchange. And even though very smart, very civilized people have popularized the term "Social Darwinist", in spite of the fact that it has become very much an accepted invective, it is neither an intellectually sound nor factually accurate term. 

When a pseudo-principled opposition to the pseudo term "Social Darwinists" is used to encourage action in our church, it has several very negative affects.  First, it turns off at least half of our congregation who may have been falsely labeled as such.  Secondly, it falsely demonizes those who believe differently.  Third, it develops the paper-thin support of a mob mentality through the use of bullying and name-calling.  We need to unite to the fullest extent possible in order to further justice.  There are also enough real problems to be addressed that we don't need to create Ogres to chase out of our church with pitchforks and torches.  

Our church has a historical record of which we can all be very proud.  Let's all work together to encourage such feats by our future generations.  

StateFarmSteve reminds us of a really important reality that Stephen Foster blogged about recently - albeit Foster made the point  more broadly than I was comfortable with. The point is this: When we dress the gospel in the garb of political ideology, and put Christ on one side of the political divide, we will alienate close to half of our fellow Christians. Of course we know Christ alienated a lot of people. But it was because He offered a freedom that led to a cross, not because He plugged into the raging political battles of His day. It is true that many Christians have a "Sweet By and By" theology which makes their faith impotent. But it need not be that way.

My wife teaches health classes at Loma Linda Academy, and is in charge of Community Service for the students. Last weekend, at the University Church Sabbath School, she had around a dozen academy students, university students, and adults talking about their experiences with the cross-generational S.A.L.T. teams she has started. These teams combine several academy students with at least one university student and one mature adult or couple in a variety of community service projects, often conceived by the students. Backpacks stocked with food for the weekend are passed out at San Bernardino high schools to homeless teenagers; kids work at The Food Pantry; they read to seniors or take walks with them. Nearly all the students in grades 9-12 get involved in some way, dozens on an ongoing basis. And no one knows or cares about the politics of those they are working with or serving. What they do know is that they serve from the heart, in the name of Christ, as representatives of an SDA Christian faith community. 

In Scripture, God's call seldom, if ever, seeks conformity to ideology or doctrine. It comes as a call to a relationship of loving obedience. Out of that relationship, behaviors and beliefs flow. Those behaviors and beliefs tend to easily transplant and thrive in other soil than relationship with Christ. But once that occurs, they will inevitably become law, take on a life of their own, and become a burden at best - divisive and destructive at worst. 

Thanks for the "heads up" on the arrival of this book.  I wonder if it includes the young Adventist among the Little Rock Nine who I understand countered charges that he was a Communist by declaring that he was a Seventh-day Adventist.

"It is amazing to me that today some Adventists who fight very hard against Darwinism in the natural sciences still believe in it when it comes to the social sciences."

Your comment, Monte, reminded me of an appeal I once made to a conference K-12 board. 

While electing one teacher to be "let go" during a fiscal downturn at the local elementary church school, I was disappointed to learn that the conference representative actively discouraged pastoral and lay members on the personnel committee from looking at the individual teachers' files.  Our final decision was made solely on teachers' reputations among these (sometimes recently) nominated representatives, at that moment in the teachers' careers.  No official "kudos" were seen.  No official "reprimends" were reviewed.  No "achievment awards" were remembered.  Those committee members who voiced the strongest opinions held sway over the "newbies" who had no objective reference points.

When I took my opportunity to ask the K-12 board members to change this process; when I asked them to encourage (if not require) all local, personnel committee members to open these files and acquaint themselves with the recorded history of these teachers, the idea was rejected.

Why?  The two strongest voices against this were themselves teachers, who spoke their fears that encouraging reviewing the files would move us too close to teacher unions, seniority and tenure.  They wanted the "weak" teachers to be weeded out by a "sink or swim" proces within personnel committees. 

While they never used Darwinian natural selection as a term to describe their approach, I left the encounter convinced that the Darwinism the board rejected in the realm of natural sciences was staunchly supported when it came to the careers of Adventist elementary educators. 

This is a good review, except for the last paragraph, which is full of confusion, either London's or Sahlin's, or both.  It would take a long essay to sort it out, and I won't try, though I salute Nathan's efforts.  I will make a couple of points.

First, I find it extremely unlikely that Adventists have ever been significantly influenced by any kind of Darwinism, biological or "social."  Second, the permutations of Darwinism adopted by the Nazis were (1) the biological Darwinism inherent in the idea of a "master race" and (2) Eugenics, which is the idea that breeding should be controlled in order to improve the race, which was popularized by Darwin's cousin, Francis Galton.  Neither of these permumations of Darwinism is exactly "social Darwinism."  As Nathan pointed out, social Darwinism sort of implied that the "unfit" would eventually lose out in the competition for resources in a process analogous to "natural selection", whereas eugenics urged that the "unfit" be sterilyzed to make certain they did not reproduce (as Justice Holmes infamously stated in Buck v. Bell, "three generations of imbeciles is enough"), in a process analogous to "artificial selection." 

It is worth pointing out that "social Darwinism" is not a self-description of any significant ideology or school of thought.  Rather, "social Darwinism" is a pejorative term used by some to describe their philosphical opponents. 

Civil rights movement , that was many years ago . Advenist were not involved as they have should . fast forward  2010 Immigration Law in Arizona . What should adventist do ? Should we go with that Law ? I read in Jaime Jorge facebook account ( he is a popular Sda violinist ) I quote " Illegals don't have rights" If we allow the bible to speak on this issue we see that God is always on the side of the oprossed , reading the  Genesis  16 God hears Hagar affliction , He hears the cry of the children of Israel being mistreated by the Egyptians . What about us ? Do we hear the cry of the minorities ?  It is sad that in Nazy Germany the Goverment  was supported by many Christians in the way they treated the Jews . Should we get involved and protect the rights of the minorities . LIfe is more than the expectancy of the second coming life is about Caring for each other , loving one another , helping each other .I believe As Christians we are called to be the voice of those who have no voice , we are called to be the ears of those who nobody hears . Ibelieve there is a higher law , a higher standard . Iam not calling for open borders , I know we need laws , But I believe based on the bible that all of us , legal ,illegals , have rights not based on immigration status but on the basis that " we are one in Chirst " tell me what you think .