When most people think of our succession from the apes they have
a picture
of a line of primates in profile as though they were waiting to
get to the
checker in a supermarket. At the end of the line is a chimp and
moving to
the front a succession of ape-like creatures rise from a crouching
position
until we reach the erect handsome human who is being checked out.
This
scenario has its origin in the egoistic assumption that Man is the
beautiful
result of evolving from ugly to our present conception of beautiful.
This
ethnocentric viewpoint causes much of the anthropological misconception
that
retards an understanding of Man.
Most anthropologists agree that the most likely candidate for common
ancestor was Ramapithicus or Rama's ape. Fragments of this creature
have
been found in the Siwalik hills of Northern India; Fort Ternan kenya,
and
Yunan province, China. This small ape lived about eleven to thirteen
million
years ago. It's dental equipment is very human. Rama's ape has lost
its
position as common ancestor and is now considered the forerunner
of the
orangutang. Perhaps the orangutang is our common ancestor. From
Australopithicus to Neanderthal and in all species of Man, fighting
carnivore teeth are missing. There is no evidence to show that any
human
ancestor ever had them. Could it be that it was the Chimp who evolved
while
Man did not? Another anomaly that puzzles anthropologists is why
the fetus
of the Chimp is more like an adult human than its mother. There
have been
some rather "far out" explanations for this but none of them really
make
sense. In all other aspects a fetus has characteristics of earlier
evolutionary forms.
If the technology of early Man made canines unneccesary he probably
would
not have developed them in the first place. Could it be that brachiation
equipment, (long arms) was an evolutionary change as the Chimp returned
to
life in the trees? Is it possible that Man's short arms are the
same as
Rama's ape because he did not? Perhaps technology was an earlier
development
than we think? Does it not make sense that Man evolved in answer
to physical
conditions created by his technology? Is it not more reasonable
to presume
that the only modifications in Man were associated with surviving
warfare:
that language is not the touchstone describing Man and that technology
is?
Does not all our experience show that behavior follows technology?
How else can we explain the vast gulf between such close cousins?
Biochemistry has discovered that the genetic structures of Man and
Chimp are
so alike that they are almost identical. Could it be that we belong
at the
tail end of the line in the supermarket and not the Chimp?
Of course we have a voice box, a large brain, and a powerful thumb.
These
evolutionary changes were the result of the technological tribe.
The
differences in aggressive behavior between animals and humans is
accounted
for because human aggression was mainly a group phenomena. The sabre
toothed
tiger could not stand up to the coordinated and planned assault
of a band of
hunters armed with spears. Warlike aggression demanded unity and
cold-blooded cooperation. Animal aggression is instantaneous and
ferocious.
Man is capable of both reactions. There is no doubt that culture
is a brake
on aggression . . . it is also a cause for aggression. The part
of culture
that caters to the totem-gene, is definitely a fomenter of aggression.
My anthropology text states, "There were ground-dwelling, bipedal,
tool-using man apes throughout much of the Pliocene epoch, but Homo,
the
language-using "ape" probably did not emerge until the end of the
Pliocene."
I disagree . . . If they were ground-dwelling, tool-using, they
were not
apes! No ape has ever used language, and humans were humans before
language.
Tools that make other tools are the test of what is human.
Anthropologists are interested in physical peculiarities like prognathism
(jutting teeth,) superorbital torus (heavy brows,) and bone thickness.
The
diminuition of these characteristics is indicative of "sapienization"
(intelligence and humanization) according to them. The fact that
neanderthal
had a larger braincase than the modern human in spite of his heavy
bones and
superorbital torus does not faze them. Pithecanthropus was a slowly
evolving
form of australopithicus and this evolution took place as technology
improved. We know nothing of their cultures, but we do know something
about
their technology.
The "ape" that took a piece of broken rock and sharpened his spear
was not
an ape at all. This was the qualitative change that distinguishes
Man from
the apes. The fact that Man changed physically and mentally as his
technology improved indicates that change took place in a direct
and
uninterrupted way.
The basic problem I have with anthropology is their monomania about
the
concept "culture." The whole panoply of anthropology is absorbed
with this
amorphous idea. The thrust of science is to simplify. Reducto ad
absurdum is
the reason for microscopes. Even telescopes are used selectively
in order to
gain some understanding of the macrocosm. Culture; unlike technology
can not
be quantified, measured, nor reduced to mathematics. Culture is
unscientific. Still the whole idea behind modern anthropology is
to sprinkle
culture on the heads of students like a priest with holy water.
The
"lithics", mesolithic, paleolithic etc. are not cultures. They are
advances
in stone age technology. When ever the anthropologist does any meaningful
work, such as measuring the energy consumption of an economy, the
only
practical measurements are those that have to do with technology.
When the
results of technology are evaluated the results are better described
as
behavior changes. Behavior like technology is measurable.
"Culture" takes in too much territory. It is too amorphous. It deals
with
the other half of the human duality that concerns itself with the
spiritual.
This aspect of the human condition is real, but is subjective and
cannot be
intellectualized. It is better left to the artists who use technology
to
evoke the spiritual, or preachers and rabbis. Its introduction into
anthropology by the neo-Kantian, Franz Boas, can only be seen as
a
deliberate attempt to obscure the reality of the connection between
technology and behavior. Boas was an enemy of materialism. Science
is the
purest form of materialism. Ergo, Boas was not a scientist. His
obstruction
was not the result of ignorance but of a deliberate desire to placate
the
reactionary who wants to keep things as they are. People who live
from the
unearned increment of investment. To them technology is a means
of
increasing their capital. The idea that it is human to share the
common
wealth poses too many ethical contradictions. Theft to them is robbery
with
a gun . . . manipulating interest rates or using insider information
is
simply good business. They are content with the idea that wealth
is a reward
for hard labor. The comment by Bret Maverick that, "his daddy had
nothing
against work, except that it was a shakey way to earn a living"
was an
expression of the reality of modern life.
The history of culture is characterized by the imposition of the
values of
the winners on the losers. If anthropologists were to drop their
pre-occupation with culture they would probably have to become an
underground movement like Marxism, or like Gallileo find some way
to avoid
the inquisition. An unbalanced distribution of wealth leads to dissidence.
The most dangerous of the dissidents is the intellectual. Tyrants
have
always hated ideas dealing with behavior. They have learned from
experience
that outright censorship is unworkable in controlling an idea. Their
enlightened approach is to obscure it, to use euphemisms, and keep
a strong
grip on communications. It is a losing struggle for them because
they have
no way of stopping the growth of technology. Technology means profits.
It
also means Internet and C-span. The power of the reactionary is
being eroded
on all sides due to advanced information technology. The power of
the tribe
becomes stronger as reality takes the place of the mystical and
sanctimonious. Dog eat dog behavior in business and politics leads
to the
dog eat dog of the criminal at the lower end of the spectrum of
society. The
resurgence of ethics is not going to come from Jerry Falwell but
is
consolidating at the base where they are necessary as a survival
mechanism.
The jungle of commerce has entered the tribe but the tribesmen are
starting
to congregate. The leaders are there and like Nelson Mandela . .
. throwing
them in jail is not going to stop them. The Guardian Angels, neighborhood
watch, senior patrol's and other quasi-vigilante organizations are
stepping
in where the police cannot go. When the youth in the universities
organize
again as they did during the Vietnam War and begin to question the
wisdom of
their elders, the tribe will begin to take a new shape.
Anthropology affects all of the social sciences and needs to be overhauled.
It is not going to remain as a "natural history" plaything for the
compulsive butterfly chaser. It has the innate capacity to become
a vital
science at the service of the tribe. It can be used to find out
who we are
and where we are going. This is essential for social change. "To
thine own
self be true and it must follow as the night, the day . . . thou
can'st not
then be false to any man."
The one-ness of humankind is a paradigm that must dissolve the parochial
hatred of the Fascist. There is no single group of people that cannot
come
under the sway of the militant bigot. Black, White, Jew, Protestant,
Catholic, and Moslem can become Fascists or can become the victim
of a
Fascist. Beware of the warrior who tells you that you are a member
of the
"chosen" people, be he Muslim or Zionist. He will blind you with
hate and
enslave you as surely as a venomous spider spins a web. In his mad
drive for
personal power he will drive you to the slaughter. His power lies
in his
ability to activate the totem gene. He can infect you with his madness
no
matter how enlightened you are. For anyone to think that they are
immune to
this disease is fatal. The gene is there in all of us. The killer
of forty
Palestinians at their prayers by a respected doctor is proof. This
was not
an act of sudden madness. It was carefully planned and executed
with the
merciless ferocity of the fascist.
I stated earlier that I did not think I would live to see Black fascism.
Neither did I think that the peace loving, artistic, and intellectual
Jew
could imitate Hitler. I should have . . . The freedom loving, open
hearted
American people fell under the sway of Tail Gunner Joe McCarthy.
These
refugees from tyranny harbored the K.K.K. The Black Legion, and
all kinds of
Brown Shirts, Silver Shirts, and Black shirted fascists. None of
us can deny
culpability . . . we all are tormented by our own totem gene. Most
of us
manage to suppress it, but there is only one sure way of overcoming
it. We
must use the tribal gene that stimulates love for our fellows.
This is the importance of ideology. This is why we can no longer
tolerate
fuzzy thinking in science. Physical, mental, and cultural differences
that
divide us must not fall prey to the Iatollahs, the Racists, the
Zionists,
and the American Firsters. If I am anti-Klu Klux Klan, it does not
mean I
hate White people. If I am anti the Reverend Farakhan it does
not follow I
hate Blacks. If I am anti-Zionist, I am not anti-Semitic . . . It
simply
means that I am anti-fascist.
Freedom of speech can not mean freedom to activate the totem gene.
The
supreme court decision that crying "fire!" in a crowded theater
is not
protected by freedom of speech, and was aimed at the Communist,
but it is
legitimate if interpreted to muzzle the Fascist. The true Communist
was
anti-fascist. The tragedy of Russia was their acceptance of a dictatorship
of any kind. The very idea of a "dictatorship of the proletariat"
was
oxymoronic and empowered the Russian Fascist. The supreme court
decision was
not aimed at this sort of fascism however. It was an attempt to
deprive the
mass of the people of leadership.
Screaming "Nigger" or blood-sucker Jew, is crying "fire" in a crowded
theatre . . . a theatre packed with the inflammable totem gene.