One of the more important concepts that we are discussing this week is that of Social Darwinism. It is not important due to its validity, as it is a logical fallacy, but because it provided a "scientific" rationale for the exploitation and subjugation of indigenous peoples by white Europeans.
It is not hard to see how this concept made sense to people of this time, particularly when it is associated with the Darwinian concept of "survival of the fittest" in light of the ethnocentric "superiority" of the Europeans. However, this association is flawed. Survival of the fittest is only one part of the larger theory of Darwinian evolution, which is supported by a voluminous body of evidence. Provide a logical critique of Social Darwinism. Why is it not a valid concept?