Esau’s Empire, Part I. By Michael Bradley
All human beings seemingly have some admixture of Cynopithecoid characteristics in order to account for some typically “human” physical features, such as nasal protrusion and extremely plantigrade feet. Also, all human beings have indulged in group aggression and not only the “family aggression” that obsessed Sigmund Freud to the exclusion of other, perhaps more important, human attributes.
This group aggression, carried out with an obvious degree of planning and tactical ability, has been manifested by “common” baboons, according to an experienced South African naturalist and careful observer, Eugene Marais.
This Cynopithecoid group aggression prefigures human tribal conflict, national warfare and the motivational strength of patriotism. These human characteristics cannot be satisfactorily explained by the Freudian emphasis on purely familial conflict alone.
Conflict within families does occur among the so-called “higher anthropoids”, the Chimpanzee and Gorilla in Africa (our only concern here), but no one has ever observed serious conflict or, for that matter, hardly any conflict between separate family groups of Chimpanzees and Gorillas.
To appreciate the potential impact of a theoretically more aggressive Cynopithecoid ancestor of Homo habilis (and therefore, probably, of Neanderthals) – say, a gelada instead of a “common” baboon – all one has to do is to imagine common human group loyalty and group aggression in a highly concentrated form.
It is internal group loyalty and cohesion so intense that individuals comprising the group have difficulty in conceiving of any identity at all outside the group. It is group aggression so extreme that members of other groups are not recognised as being of the same species (which, in a strictly technical sense, they are not). Any opposition to the groups’ Will to control and conquer is perceived as an attack on the group’s security. They rationalize that, in being thwarted from control and conquest, they are actually the “victims”.
Therefore, in conflict, any cruelty can be inflicted on the “enemy” without qualm because, in a terribly real sense of genetic perception, they do not exist – or should not exist. Their very existence is perceived as an active threat. Therefore, conflicts result in abject enslavement of the “enemy” and eventual death through torture and maltreatment, or in immediate genocide of the “enemy”. Justification for this behaviour is not really required, but (in humans) it has usually been “religious” when convenient.
Now, it is interesting that the genetic admixture of some extremely aggressive Cynopithecoid can possibly explain the monotheistic tendencies of Homo habilis descendants, the Neanderthals.
Elsewhere, I have relied upon the actual evidence, which is the undoubted and amply demonstrated Neanderthal fascination with numbers, to propose why a Neanderthal tendency toward monotheism might exist. But there is also a more subtle, and perhaps much more powerful, reason why Homo habilis- descended humanity might have a basic genetic proclivity toward specifically male dominant monotheism. In short, there may be a more significant and more objective evolutionary mechanism at work with respect to fanatical male-dominant monotheism.
Canine social hunters, like jackals and wolves, always have a leader that directs the pack’s activities. Among jackals and wolves, this leader is usually (not always) the dominant female. But the true dogs and wolves are zoologically notable for their lack of sexual dimorphism. It is often difficult to distinguish between male and female wolves, foxes, jackals, coyotes and even hyenas (a different family altogether and only a kind of “half- dog”), especially at any distance. This is a commonplace observation with any long haired dog on any city street. As a specific example, “Lassie” of film and television fame, was played by a trained male collie.
Pongid (“monkey”) social hunters like the Cynopithecoids are remarkable for their extreme degree of sexual dimorphism. Male baboons, drills and geladas are so much larger than females (and sometimes distinguished in other ways) that the two genders have often been mistaken for two distinct species. It took Rüppel three months to identify with certainty the female of the drill species. At first he thought they were just local green baboons.
Obviously, with such a size differential between the sexes of Cynopithecoids, a female troop leader becomes a practical impossibility among Cynopithecoids. She is not nearly large enough to attack certain types of prey, let alone maintain discipline among the much larger male hunters of the troop. The leader of the troop must be a male, and is usually the largest and
most dominant one. Among Cynopithecoids, females are abjectly submissive or else they do not live long.