I want to talk about one more topic that
I feel I need to address. It has got to do with race. If we look at the way the
German fascists interpreted race and the conclusions that they came to,
obviously we should conclude that they were very misguided.
Still, merit may be found in considering
that at the time, in the nineteen thirties, race was still seen as much more of
a genetic barrier between people, such, as we know today, does not exist.
However, the fascist ideas on race were in effect a very literal interpretation
of the classical Darwinian ideas on evolution and the survival of the fittest.
They believed, the way Nietzsche had outlined it, that the evolution of mankind
was the struggle between different races which were competing to become the next
step on the evolutionary ladder, or in other words: superhuman. This is how the
fascists fashioned their ideas of the super or master race. They thought that
the unique physical features of blond hair and blue eyes were an indication
that blond and blue eyed people were on their evolutionary way to genetically
separate themselves from the gene pool of the rest of humanity.
I do not actually think that enough has
been done to discredit this sort of idea in principle. Most fascist ideas on
race seem so outrageous that they border on what we perceive as ridiculous, and
therefore make us laugh. However, within our laughter, which is a healthy sign
in my opinion, resonates a certain unease. I believe that this unease is
related to a lack of cultural and scientific perceptions hat reassure us that
people of different race and culture do not pose a threat to our own cultural
and racial integrity. The question arises ‘What is race?’ and ‘How does it
affect me?’.
It is my impression, when reading about
the origins of the human race in popular scientific literature, that not much
has been done at all to discredit the idea of a super human race as the next
step on the evolutionary ladder. As a matter of fact, I feel that the idea of
us as a master race that has emerged from the pool of humanity is something
that modern science still embraces. It is probably phrased in a different way.
It might be called the survival of the fittest, which predicts that there will
be winners and losers. Ideas will be put forward as to what it will take to be
part of the future human race and what sacrifices will need to be made on our
behalf. Such ideas may be presented in a past tense, suggesting who were
winners and who were losers. So, the image is, that eventually humanity will evolve,
and that the evolved state of humanity will be a superior human being.
I do not think there is merit in judging
the reasons that attract people to ideas of superiority since I feel that they
are based on fear, such as the fear of not surviving, of not being good enough
or not having what it takes to be justified in ones existence, of not having the cutting edge. I think that
this is pretty much how humanity is understood at the moment. It is understood
as living in an environment of intense competition for a secure place on this
planet and its future. We are constantly reminded how the Neanderthal people
did not have what it took to survive. They are presented as evolutionary losers
that died out as a consequence. The voices that adhere to such a perception are
very persistent, which indicates a strong culture amongst us that is based on
the idea that some of us will not make it. If one is to look at the precise
evidence and arguments as to why the people of the Neanderthal culture should
have died out, it is apparent that such views can only persist by ignoring a
host of evidence, including all sympathetic interpretations that would indicate
otherwise.
There is a fundamental bias when it
comes to the way science looks at Neanderthal people because the demise of the
Neanderthal culture and its people is what is needed to justify ideas of us
being a superior human race, Homo Sapiens Sapiens, the wise wise men, who have
emerged from a primitive and unsophisticated gene pool, incapable of the sort
of achievements with which we pride ourselves today. The classification of
human ancestors into separate species itself, including that of us as Homo
Sapiens promotes the idea of the evolution of superior and inferior human
beings. This sort of classification is not scientifically necessary. It is a
matter of choice and preference.
I can see that play and competitive play
are part of humanity but I think for large parts of human existence this
competitiveness was channelled into ritual which itself served a greater
communal bond.
There were times when human populations
on this planet were much, much smaller. I think this is crucial. There is a
collective psychology within the human race, within probably all living
creatures, and if populations become dense, this psychology changes. The world
today is very densely populated. The cultural response therefore tends to be
different from times or places that are not densely populated. Anthropologist
may agree with this. Not all cultures have shown the same level of aggression.
Some cultures are better at avoiding collective psychological reflexes in
relation to densely populated environments. It strikes me that such culture has
a particular precedence in Asia, where tropical human populations during the
last Ice Age were confined in condensed rainforests and people over the last
million years did not have the benefit of the wide open spaces that we know
from
I have mentioned that there is little
evidence of warfare amongst prehistoric humans. That should not surprise us.
First, because populations were far less dense than today and we now from
indigenous people who reflect a similar density of population that they are
very hospitable and not aggressive towards strangers. However, secondly, there
are so few known human fossils representing all of human prehistory that we are
fortunate to even have any evidence of prehistoric human existence at all, let
alone of incidents of aggression amongst humans. We have to assume that such incidents
did exist, even in our prehistoric past.
However, this should probably not be a
question of principle but one of degree anyways. So far fossil evidence of
prehistoric humans, from four million years ago to less than five thousand
years ago suggests that the degree of human aggression towards each other has
been low, and that humanity despite temporary isolation due to climate changes
has benefited greatly from an exchange of culture and genes.
I say this because I firmly believe that
our aquatic or semi-aquatic past has bestowed us with the ability to relate to
our environment via culture, and it seems evident to me that all culture
ultimately benefits from encounters with other culture.
Race is a physical expression of being
exposed to a certain culture and a certain environment. We know that
environments do change, and that such change also results in a change of
culture and physical appearance. This is because culture thrives to achieve a
state of harmony with its environment that encompasses both physical and
technological ability, factors which are dependant on the size of populations
and the presence of natural resources.
The natural resources present during an
ice age differ from those during a warm period.
We know that studies of the contemporary
gene pool of humanity suggest that no human population on earth has been
separated from other humans on earth for more than anywhere between five and
fifty thousand years. The fifty thousand year benchmark only applies to a few
highly isolated human populations such as the pigmies and the Bushmen, and by
no means is this to say that the people of these cultures did not have genetic
exchanges with other human cultures. It is merely to say that they still show a
lot of physical and cultural features that were very common amongst people of
their region during the ice age fifty thousand years ago, which across the
tropical belt resulted in people and mammals of much smaller stature, as
opposed to the
The key idea that upholds race as a sign
of cultural and genetic divergence from the gene pool of humanity towards a
possibly superior or inferior human race in the future is that our evolution is
a very slow and cumbersome process fraught with trial and error which
inevitably leads to a state where there are winners and losers. We may even
feel that when we allow ourselves to disconnect from our hearts and indulge in
envy rather than focusing on our centre, where contentedness resides, that we
live in a world filled with success and failure.
Yet look at ourselves, the ease with
which we claim one new territory after another. Not leaving a stone unturned.
Go forth and make the world your own. We have learned this. We have developed this
culture over millions of years. So, yes, evolution is a slow process but in
species that have the ability to nurture a cultural relationship with their
environment, the evolutionary blow on the physical aspect of our existence is
softened by an evolution of culture.
When I look at the human fossil record,
I do not see the hostile competition of human species and races for supremacy.
I see the evolution of ever more complex cultures which have resulted in less
and less physical lifestyles, resulting in less and less physical people that
rely on more and more complex cultures. Such cultures have a habit of
collapsing from time to time due to a variety of circumstances that more often
or not relate to the subsidence of natural resources, such as the depletion and
the erosion of soil, dramatic changes in oceanic water levels and the onset of
drastic climate changes.
I look at the physical changes that have
occurred within people of
Human culture never seems to put all of
its eggs in one basket. There is always a great array of diversity. The great
diversity of nature is mimicked in our culture. We can see the benefit of such
diversity if we realise that obscure, seemingly unimportant and peripheral
cultures come to dominate and infiltrate entire continents and ages.
The fact that there was a greater variation
in physical built and robustness in prehistoric people some four to two million
years ago merely suggests that the degree of culture with which humans related
to their environment and each other was less than it is today. However, this
same variation suggests the presence of culture as an evolutionary agent. The
presence of culture naturally results in a diversity of appearance amongst a
species. We can observe this very effect in domestic animal species but also in
the variation of appearance that exists amongst humans around the world despite
of our great genetic closeness.
The evolutionary success of humanity
resides in its potential for cultural diversity which allows humans to
integrate and adapt intricately to the changes that occur around them, no
matter where they are. There are people on this planet today, who in their own
lifetime have effortlessly bridged the gap from Stone Age hunter and gather
culture to the industrial jet-set.
Race is no more or less than a
subjective distinction between one person and another based on appearance. Such
differences in appearance arise due to lifestyles dictated by culture and
environment. They may develop gradually over long periods of time or arise
suddenly under the pressures of cultural and climate changes.
In an environment of culture as has been
common for all humans for millions of years, race is no more than a secondary
evolutionary agent. Secondary, because it cannot achieve the sort of advantages
that can be obtained through culture. The most physically developed person will
not outrun a car, will not jump higher or wider than someone on a horse, will
not carry the same weights as a mule or even calculate as fast as a calculator.
Yet, culture is a social achievement.
The greater the ability of a culture to integrate diversity, the more sublime
are going to be its results, the more intricately is it going to be interwoven
with the natural world.
The achievement of humanity is a
collective one. It is called culture. Culture is a collective achievement, and
although cultures and their people can get isolated from time to time resulting
in different cultures, this is a process that can affect people of the same
race. Race is tied to culture but culture is not tied to race.
In our recent German history after the
war, some people were brought up in a socialist country and some in a
capitalist country. We grew up very differently. We were exposed to very
different cultures. Some of us struggled to earn money to afford things while
the others struggled to find something to buy for their money. We saw different
children programs on television. We learned different languages at school. Our
universities and educational systems were focusing on different objectives. All
of this resulted in all sorts of problems when
The ideas on race are very subjective.
It often results in very broad classifications that are actually not adequate.
It works as long as there is integrity between cultural expression and physical
appearance as a consequence of culture and lifestyle. So, if you have a long
period of being exposed to a particular culture you will gain a particular
appearance. However, when culture has lost its tradition, when culture is on
the move and people blend there is no predictable appearance of a person. One
cannot make sweeping statements about a person based on their appearance
because we retain certain features of ancestral cultural exposure that may no
longer be relevant or representative of our current cultural identity.
We can find evidence of this in the
images of people created by the early Egyptian cultures which show a great
racial diversity, from African to Asian and European features. The same sort of
diversity can be found in the oldest civilisations of the South American
sub-continent, in the Olmec culture. There again we find African, Asian and
European resemblances in the depictions of humans. Eric the red, a Viking who
famously sailed to Greenland and
It seems that every culture has a
lifespan, ranging from a diverse and vibrant beginning, via a fully expressed
mature state, to an institutionalised, rigid, yet wise and elderly state. When
a culture dies, it manifests in the collapse of its institutions. However, a
seed or essence of culture always survives, ready to mix and blend with new
cultural currents. Anyone who studies any culture in any detail will be able to
observe this.
It is not the race that is the crucial
factor in the evolution of humanity. Race is a by-product of culture. Culture
is what shapes us. Culture is where our integrity can be found – not race.