How would Americans compare to Europeans in Social Darwinism?

Social Darwinism is a theory that applies the concepts of natural selection and survival of the fittest to human societies. It was used in the late 19th and early 20th centuries to justify political conservatism, imperialism, and racism, and to discourage intervention and reform.

When considering how Americans might compare to Europeans in terms of Social Darwinism, the context of the era and the social/political circumstances of the time are critical. Both Americans and Europeans applied the concepts of Social Darwinism differently according to their local conditions.

In America, social Darwinist ideas were often used to rationalize the cut-throat competition of capitalist economies, including the rapid industrialization and the system of laissez-faire capitalism that was prevalent during the Gilded Age. It was also used to justify the United States' westward expansion and the displacement of Native American peoples, as well as the eugenics movement that sought to 'improve' the population by controlled breeding.

In Europe, similar ideas were present and intertwined with colonialism and imperial ambitions. Many European powers used Social Darwinist arguments to rationalize their empire-building and the subjugation of non-European peoples, asserting that they were biologically and culturally superior. This line of reasoning was evident in the 'civilizing missions' of colonial powers and was particularly associated with British and French empires. Additionally, in the context of Europe's complex system of nation-states, Social Darwinism fed into nationalist and, later, fascist ideologies, culminating horrifically in the racial policies of Nazi Germany.

In both contexts, Social Darwinism was used to justify economic, political, and social policies that favored competition and power hierarchies, but the specific applications could differ based on localized goals such as manifest destiny in America versus colonial imperialism in Europe.