Race and Genocide in Evolution

Race is a socially constructed concept in which humans classify individuals into distinct groups. Throughout history, the concept of race has initiated the extreme cultural divergences of groups of people, causing many enduring discriminations and ideologies against other races. Despite the major sociological and cultural differences between races, biologically, genetic diversity between races is almost insignificant. As humans, we find the need to classify individuals into distinct groups, which has led to extreme effects, starting with racism to the ultimate form, genocide. From an evolutionary perspective, the act of genocide inherently exists for the desire to impose ideology, the domination of a group, and the perpetuation of a certain race or species. These genocidal components are exhibited in humans and in close primate relatives, the chimpanzees.

Human beings display phenotypic differences primarily based on skin color, which leads to different races. For a classification system of race to be biologically meaningful, researchers must carefully decide which heritable characteristics will be used to describe and separate the races. Differences between races must be discernible and not continually changing by small amounts between populations. Each individual placed within a certain racial category must possess the selected allele for a trait. For instance, if brown eyes and blonde hair are selected as defining characteristics, every individual belonging to that racial category must share both of those traits. Finally individuals of the same racial category must have descended from the same common ancestor. The purpose of defining these characteristics is to distinguish groups (Chismark, 2004). However, these classification criteria do not always explain the traits of every traditional race. The premier outward trait people define race with is skin color, which is not a well-defined trait. About five genes significantly influence skin color and around fifty are likely to contribute. Human skin color is exceedingly variant, in that skin color may differ widely even within the same family. The margin between black and white is a subjective, human-made boundary, not one entailed by nature (Chismark, 2004).

 

 

In cultures worldwide, the color of one’s skin has many times dictated their quality of life as a result. The distinction between being bought into slavery and being a slave owner in the American South for instance, was solely based on the judgments of humans, not rooted in biology. According to research conducted by Harvard geneticist Richard Lewontin in 1972, 85% of genetic diversity in humans transpires with individuals of a single racial population. Lewontin found that 8% of diversity takes place between populations from the same racial background and only 7% of genetic diversity was found for differences between races (Ananthaswamy 2002). Ananthaswamy (2002) sums up these findings in the statement, “two individuals are different because they are individuals, not because they belong to different races.” Since 1972, geneticists have been working off of findings of researchers like Lewontin, and report even more accurate results. Any two people of the same or different race on average diverge genetically by a minute 0.2 percent, and only 0.012 percent contributes to the variations between traditional races. Variations of alleles explain most of the outward differences perceived as race (Chismark, 2004). Often times it is extremely difficult to classify an individual into a distinct race based solely upon external appearances. Many India natives have facial features similar to those who are Caucasian and simultaneously boast very dark skin, yet they live in Asia. When these traditional defining characteristics are examined closely, many groups of people are left with no “traditional” race (Chismark, 2004).

Geneticist, Lisa Brooks and researchers around the world are collaborating on the International HapMap Project. They are documenting and analyzing the SNPs or single nucleotide polymorphisms found in four populations: Utah residents of European ancestry, the Yoruba population of Nigeria, Han Chinese in Beijing, and Japanese natives of Tokyo. The area where the circles overlap represents the findings that approximately 85 percent of variation is shared by all populations. This model further represents the miniscule genetic differences between races (Brownlee, 2007).

 

[RACING IN CIRCLES. Research has shown that the range of DNA variety in populations, represented here by circles of various colors, overlaps by about 85 percent. Only a few of each group's DNA snippets are unique. E. Roell]    (Brownlee, 2007).

There are many theories about the evolution of the diverse human races. Darwin’s natural and sexual selection theories provide different explanations and pieces of evidence toward the origin of human races. The natural selection ideology serves possible explanations to the geographic variation of races with examples such as the presence of sickle cell anemia in African blacks but the absence in Swedes. This represents a heterozygote advantage in which the disorder protects against malaria, a disease found only in tropical areas. The natural selection theory is not as easily applied to skin color. A seemingly correct explanation would be that groups of people in sunny areas have darker skin heavily pigmented with melanin for sun protection, while people in areas far north or south of the equator have less melanin and paler skin. Contradictory statements against the climate theory include examples of areas which have equal cloud coverage. West Africa, South China, and Scandinavia all share about three and a half hours of sunlight each day, yet feature black, yellow and white skin tones. On the other hand, sexual selection occurs when individuals (usually females) chose mates based on external traits that will lead to the reproductive success of good genes. Often times, people tend to marry others who resemble themselves, therefore continuing a certain race (Diamond, 1992). In 1987, geneticist Rebecca L. Cann compared mitochondrial DNA from African, Asian, Caucasian, Australian and New Guinean populations and found that Africans were significantly the most genetically variable. These findings go along with the strong theories that the root of all humankind began in Africa (Chismark, 2004). As emigrants moved out of Africa and spread throughout the world, human ancestors took somewhat different groups of alleles with them. Templeton (1999) uses candelabra models to display recent human racial evolution. He states that the candelabra models hypothesize that the major Old World geographical groups (Europeans, sub-Saharan Africans, and Asians) diverged from one another and since have had virtually independent evolutionary histories, with occasional mixture. Portrayal of the evolutionary relationships between these racial groups is therefore displayed well in an evolutionary tree, or candelabra. The ancient origin candelabra model considered the split between the major races (Asians, Africans and Europeans) simultaneously with the spread of Homo erectus. Independent evolutions of each race then followed and developed into their modern forms. The only difference between the ancient and recent candelabras is in their chronological placement of the ancestral point. They share the same “tree topology” that represents Africans, Europeans, and Asians as distinct branches on an evolutionary candelabrum. The branching topology defines “races” according to evolutionary lineage, not the time since the common ancestral population (Templeton, 1999).

(International Agricultural, 2007)

Although the concept that genetic diversity between races is virtually nonexistent, there continue to be individuals who believe that there are fundamental racial differences. Often times, these individuals or groups of individuals will find the need to classify people into different sub-groups or races, which sometimes result in hierarchy. Racial differences are assembled through culture and society, not through the imposition of nature. People tend to stay within their own groups and find reasons to differentiate themselves from others. This need to classify others into distinct groups frequently results in discrimination and racism, which can lead to violent forms of classification, the ultimate form being genocide.

The word genocide was first coined in 1944 by Polish scholar, Raphael Lemkin in efforts to inform other countries about the mass murder of Jews in Germany held by the Nazis. Lemkin stated that genocide referred to, “a coordinated plan aimed at destruction of the essential foundations of the life of national groups…Genocide is directed against a national group as an entity and the attack on individuals is only secondary to the annihilation of the national group to which they belong.” The Convention on the Prevention and Punishment of the Crime of Genocide emphasizes that genocide is “the intent to destroy, in whole or in part, a national, ethnical, racial, or religious group,” by “killing members of the group; causing serious bodily or mental harm to members of the group;… imposing measures intended to prevent births within the group,” (Rieff, 2001). Genocide is the brutal, systematic extinction of another group for the ideological and literal dominance and continuation of a “superior” group.

Acts of genocide have unfortunately been occurring throughout history all over the world. Genocide is an ancient crime beginning possibly at the formation of the religion Judaism. One of the first documented genocides occurred in the fifth century BC in Rome with the destruction of Melos by Athens in the Peloponnesian War. In 149-146 BC, Rome assaulted Carthage destroying majority of its people at the end of the third Punic War. Thirteenth century people of China were hit with several horsemen rampages of Genghis Khan in quest for power. In the 1400s the Native Americans suffered through mass killings as settlers trampled their population to colonize North America. In 1904, the Herero people of Namibia rose against their German colonizers in a six month battle which eventually resulted in the ordered extermination of the Herero tribe. The Armenian genocide of 1915 transpired when the Ottoman government systematically eliminated the Armenian military, then the political, religious and intellectual leaders. The rest of the population, in efforts to escape were either attacked or slaughtered or died of starvation, dehydration and brutalization. The Holocaust of the Jews by the Nazi party of Germany took place mainly in 1944 and is known as perhaps the “paradigmatic case of genocide.” Nazi leaders planned the ‘Final Solution’ to the question of Jews which entailed the mass extermination of all Jews through primary means of work camps, gas chambers and ovens, resulting in over six million deaths. In 1972 in Burundi, Africa Tutsi leaders launched a genocidal assault on the majority Hutu population, leaving 200,000 killed. In 1994 as an act of retaliation, Hutu extremists slaughtered 800,000 to one million Tutsis and Hutu moderates in Rwanda in only one hundred days. Recent offenses of genocide include the 2003 initiated murderous attacks on non-Arab inhabitants by the government sponsored Janjaweed militia in the Darfur region of Sudan (Woolford, 2008). The conflict in the Democratic Republic of the Congo is still taking place today as an indirect stemming from past Hutu-Tutsi conflicts in Rwanda and from the invasion of the Congo by Rwanda. People in the Congo are fighting for control of the vast natural wealth of gold, diamonds, copper, cobalt, uranium, tin and many other precious minerals. One of the prime methods of assault is rape, to instill dominance over all members of the communities, not just the male soldiers (Crisis in Congo, 2008). These cases represent only a small proportion of the genocides that unfortunately occur worldwide each year.

(Watching America, 2005)    (McMane, 2007)

The act of genocide enhances the idea that humans are paradoxical creatures in that we are capable of being the kindest and cruelest creatures. De Waal (2005) compares human nature to that of a Janus head, that we are the product of two opposing forces, for instance empathy and evil. Resorting to genocide can be somewhat explained by the frustration-aggression hypothesis. Destructiveness is the ultimate form of aggression that is a response to frustrations. These frustrations may rise from “economic privation, sociological pressures such as discrimination, ecological limitations such as overcrowding and deprivations and aggravations such as the absence of love or lack of support for one’s dignity and self confidence,” (Charny, 1999). Ethologist, Konrad Lorenz stated that practically all species in the animal world restricted their killings to “extraspecific aggression” or wars against another species and refrained from “intraspecific aggression” which entails wars against their own species-excluding issues of territorial overcrowding. Lorenz concluded that “man as a species represents an aberrant mutation to nature.” Charny (1999) stated that Lorenz did not take into account the detail that humans commit these acts of dominance to “achieve a redefinition of a victim species as not being of their own kind.” Charny claimed that there is a ‘process of dehumanization’ in which the groups of victims are deemed not human, subhuman or as if “not of our species.” In the majority of instances of genocide, perpetrators view other racial or stranger groups as not just different, but inferior. Perpetrators then see their victims as nonhuman, making their violence more justifiable. The Spanish colonizers for one example viewed the Central and South American natives as a different, subhuman race, allowing them to feel justified in enslaving and slaughtering nearly the entire population (Longman, 2005).

The nature of human destruction is rooted in our drive for dominance and primitive competitiveness over resources of life. The psychology of human aggression derives from natural mechanisms of the perception of danger and the endless need to differentiate ourselves from other groups. Members of strange groups feature different languages, norms, religions and skin tones from ourselves, so blindly people tend to hate the strange groups and therefore give them dehumanized traits. From an evolutionary standpoint, the xenophobia to strange groups is realistic because it is programmed in nature to hunt and attack intruders. A wrong perception of the friendly or villainous nature of intruders risks the community or village being attacked. People therefore make themselves “superior” to strangers to protect themselves and their respective communities from the dangers of out-groups, which often are potential threats (Charny, 1999). “Us versus them” and “in-group versus out-group” theories generate a favoring of the in-group and devaluation and discrimination against the out-group. The result of the devaluation of the out-group is the implementation of an ideology which designates the out-group as the enemy (Staub, 2002).

Aside from that view that humans commit acts of genocide for protection against stranger groups, people may contribute due to obedience and conformity. This view claims that humans are inherently innocent, but have the need to conform to authority. Stanley Milgram demonstrated how people conform and obey orders of authority figures in a controversial experiment. The experiment involved a “professor” who instructed subjects to administer potentially lethal shocks (weren’t actually lethal) to other subjects just for answering a question incorrectly (Charny, 1999). The results of the experiment demonstrate how most humans conform to orders of authority, even if they know they are harming or killing innocent individuals, which is seen when soldiers obey the commands of leaders in cases of genocide.

Motives for genocide vary among the groups of perpetrators, but commonalities have been noted in many cases. The four common rationales as posited by Lifton and Markusen (1999) include: 1) to eliminate a group perceived by killers as a threat, 2) spread terror among their enemies, 3) accumulate economic wealth, and 4) to implement a belief, theory or ideology. Those four rationales of the motives of genocide can come from psychological trauma, economic defeat and political instability which can been seen in the Nazi case as a result of defeat in World War I. The mass killing of the Holocaust was a way for the Nazis to “cure” the trauma and to implement their cleansing ideology on the concept of race.

The desire and need to spread a certain ideology through genocide is predominantly a trait of humans. The motives to dominate other groups and therefore continue one’s own group are characteristics which can be seen in humans as well as in primates such as chimpanzees. An evolutionary perspective would explain that humans and chimpanzees are xenophobic for the protection of their group, to ultimately pass on their genes. Extreme xenophobia often results in genocide as seen in humans, and aggression and occasional killings have been observed in chimpanzees. Humans and chimpanzees are social animals which rely heavily upon group cooperation for survival (De Waal, 2005). This promotes in-group support and xenophobia toward any stranger out-groups which may pose a threat to survival.

For years evolutionary psychologists and ethologists have been working to find innate reasons as to why humans and other animals commit acts of genocide and violence. In 1962 experimental psychologist, John B. Calhoun conducted an experiment with an expanding rat population in crammed living quarters with limited food. He observed the rats kill, sexually assault and in time begin to cannibalize one another, especially around the central feeding station. The rats were drawn to this central feeding station, even though food was present in other places throughout the room, which Calhoun lent to the need for social stimulation and “pathological togetherness,” (De Waal, Filippo and Judge, 2000). Population researchers soon after began looking from rats to humans and tried to find correlations between population density and per capita murder rates. De Waal and colleagues (2000) found no statistically meaningful correlation between the two and decided to observe various levels of crowding in three different outdoor pens of rhesus monkeys. To their surprise, density and crowding did not affect male aggressiveness. De Waal, Filippo and Judge set up another similar project with chimpanzees, which are closer relatives than rhesus monkeys. Once again, the researchers found no correlation between crowding and density level and aggression. They did find that even though aggression levels showed no major increases, the chimpanzees weren’t necessarily in relaxed states. The chimpanzees in more dense sites experienced some raised levels of stress, so perhaps the chimps were able to control their aggression through coping as humans do most of the time in cramped areas such as malls during holiday seasons or at sold out concerts. Further experiments should be conducted on crowding combined with scarcity of resources, especially food with chimpanzees or even humans. This may be difficult to carry out however due to ethical experimental guidelines.

Other researchers engaged in studies in which chimpanzees were observed at national parks in Africa. As chimpanzees are xenophobic animals, attacks on neighbors mostly take place when adult males are patrolling their community’s borders. The findings of the study were that males patrolled boundaries when patrolling parties were large and made up of members who were heavily cooperative and willing to take the risk of patrolling. The adult males were patrolling for dominance, alliances, food and safety (Watts and Mitani, 2001). The study focused on many areas of patrolling behavior such as age, gender, dominance rank, copulation rate, willingness and opportunities to join patrols. The results may have been clearer if the study focused on a limited number of factors contributing to patrolling such as primarily focusing on dominance rank and willingness to join patrols.

A similar study was conducted by researchers, Wilson, Hauser and Wragham (2001) on intergroup conflict. The researchers sought information as to whether intergroup conflict was dependent upon size of respective groups, range location or dominance rank of wild chimpanzees. The benefits of intergroup conflict included more access to food, mates and territory. The study found that the primary benefit of intergroup aggression by killing adult rival males is to reduce the coalition strength of neighboring groups. The greater the number of members in the group, the more likely intergroup aggression and attacks will occur on out-groups. This finding on size of groups related to aggression was also reported in another study carried out by Wilson, Hauser and Wragham in 2007. Further experimentation should take place as to whether the presence of humans has an effect on aggression. In the study, northern community chimpanzees lived on the boundary of a rural town populated by humans and the southern community was not well acquainted to humans (Wilson, Hauser and Wragham, 2001).

Specific examples of fatal attacks of chimpanzees have been found by researchers in national parks in Africa. Boesch and colleagues (2007) found a dead adult male chimpanzee with his genitals torn off, throat ripped open, complete exposure of the lower jaw, seven lacerations to the chest and stomach exposing internal organs and multiple wounds covering the hands, feet, ears, cheeks, eyes and mouth. Laboratory research on the Y-chromosomes and haplotypes on the chromosomes from the dead chimpanzee and chimpanzees of local and neighboring communities favor the likelihood of intergroup murder. The DNA of the males of the neighboring communities proved to have more related DNA than that of the local group. This finding helps to prove the idea behind aggression and killing between chimpanzee groups due to xenophobia and the need for group protection and survival.

The concept of race is primarily constructed through sociological and cultural human discernment. The difference between white, black, yellow and all shades in between is purely due to human perception, hardly due to genetics. It is human nature to fear the unknown, whether it is skin color, religious preference or language of other people. In terms of evolution, xenophobia is practical for the protection from outsiders who may pose a threat to the security of a tribe or village. Humans and closely related chimpanzees share the trait of being xenophobic to ensure the safety of their group, and to above all pass on the genes of the group. Xenophobia often results in racial discrimination which is acted upon in the most extreme form, genocide. Genocide represents the core of human capacity for evil. Perpetrators of genocide seek to impose enduring ideological beliefs, seek to dominate and dehumanize other groups and to ultimately perpetuate their own group. Human nature illustrates the utmost irony of being distinguished by the aptitude for the gentlest compassion, yet synchronously the cruelest evil.

 

 

Works Cited

Ananthaswamy, A. 2002. Under the Skin. New Scientist. Pp. 34-37.  

Boesch, C., Head, J., Tagg, N., Arandjelovic, M., Vigilant, L. and M. M. Robbins. 2007. Fatal

 

Chimpanzee Attack in Loango National Park, Gabon.  Springer Science.

 

Vol. 28:1025–1034. (Primary source)

 

Brownlee, C. 2005. Code of Many Colors. Science News. Vol. 167(15): 232.

Charny, I. W. 1999. Psychology of Genocide. Encyclopedia of Genocide.

Vol. I: 250-253; Vol. II: 477-483.

Chismark, S.R. 2004. Race: Human Genetics and Social Issues. Encyclopedia of Genetics:

Revised Edition. Vol. II: 658-663.

“Crisis in the Congo: Questions and Answers: Congo Conflict.” Friends of the Congo. 2008.       

            <http://www.friendsofthecongo.org>.

De Waal, F., Filippo, A. and P.G. Judge. 2000. Coping with Crowding. Scientific American.

Vol. 282(5): 76-81. (Primary source)

De Waal, F. 2005. Violence. Our Inner Ape. Pp. 133-176.  Riverhead Books, New York.

Diamond, J. 1992. Sexual Selection, and the Origin of Human Races. The Third Chimpanzee.

Pp. 110-121.

Lifton, R. J. and E. Markusen. 1999. Genocide Mentality. Encyclopedia of Genocide.

Vol. I: 250-253

Longman, T. 2005. Racism and Genocide. Encyclopedia of Genocide and Crimes Against

Humanity. Vol. II: 857-859.

Rieff, D. 2001. Defining Genocide. Genocide: Contemporary Issues Companion. Pp. 65-77.

 

Staub, E. 2002. Becoming a Perpetrator. Understanding Genocide. Pp. 14-17, 31-34.

 

Templeton, A.R. 1999. Human Races: A Genetic and Evolutionary Perspective. American

 

Anthropologist. 100(3):632-650.

 

Watts, D. P. and Mitani, J. C. 2001. Boundary Patrols and Intergroup Encounters in Wild

 

Chimpanzees. Behaviour.  Vol. 138:  299-327. (Primary source)

 

Wilson, M. L., Hauser, M. D. and Wrangham, R. W. 2007. Chimpanzees (Pan troglodytes)

 

modify grouping and vocal behaviour in response to location-specific risk. Behaviour

 

Vol. 144: 1621-1653. (Primary source)

 

Wilson, M. L., Hauser, M. D. and Wrangham, R. W. 2001. Does participation in intergroup

 

conflict depend on numerical assessment, range location, or rank for wild chimpanzees?

 

Animal Behavior. Vol. 61(6): 1203-1216. (Primary source)

 

Woolford, A. 2008. Examples of Genocide. Encyclopedia of Race, Ethnicity and Society.

 

Vol. II: 531-533.

 

IMAGE: Eyes on Darfur. Amnesty International.  2007.

            <http://www.eyesondarfur.org/crisis.html>.

IMAGE: International Agricultural Programs at Oklahoma State University. 2007.

<http://internationalagprograms.okstate.edu/internationalstudents/Internationalstudents.html>.

IMAGE: McMane, S. 2007. The Holocaust: Voice and Memory.

<http://www.mcmaneclasses.com/webquest/process.htm>.

IMAGE: Newell Rubbermaid. 2005.

<http://www.newellrubbermaid.com/newellco/images/div_group.jpg>.

IMAGE: Sensible Shots: Prague: Crowded. 2008.                 

<http://www.sensibleshots.com/index.php?showimage=51>.

IMAGE: Sowa, C. A. 2008. Minerva Systems. <http://www.minervaclassics.com/quotat.htm>.

IMAGE: Tchkhartichvili, G. 2007. Heart of Darkness: Chimpanzees’ struggle in Africa.

<http://www.thevarsity.ca/view/print/1110-heart-of-darkness-chimpanzees-struggle>.

IMAGE: Watching America. 2005.

            < http://www.watchingamerica.com/alhayatal…;.

<http://inplacenews.wordpress.com/tag/murder/>.

VIDEO: A Scientific Perspective on Race.<http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=B9IyroYm4n4>.

VIDEO: Ape Genius. National Geographic. 2008.

<http://video.nationalgeographic.com/video/player/news/>. (Not exactly related to my

topic, but it’s a cool video!

VIDEO: Hotel Rwanda-Million Voices. <http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=yezmNCQk_S4>.

VIDEO: Milgram Experiment (Original Footage) 2/4.

<http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=jBc2xVcys0w>.

VIDEO: Spear-Wielding Chimps Studied. National Geographic. 2008.

<http://video.nationalgeographic.com/video/player/news/>.

VIDEO: The Darfur Genocide: A Present Reality.

<http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=hXdWDM4fmRY>.

VIDEO: The Tyra Banks Show: Preconceived Notions about Race. Interesting Websites

Eichenseher, T. 2008. Baby Chimp Rescued From Congo Army.

http://news.nationalgeographic.com/news/2008/11/081118-baby-chimp-photo.html.

http://edition.cnn.com/2008/WORLD/europe/11/25/sbm.perpetrators/index.html?eref=rss_topstories

 

 

 

 

 

 

No Comments