We humans are exquisitely skilled in recognizing, studying, contemplating the characteristics of the human face. Beauty is defined by the human face. This characteristic, which is largely an inherited skill, may be the destruction of humanity.
I suggest that our imaginary concept of race arises clearly from our propensity towards facial recognition having such a central role in our existence. Scientifically, “race” is a biological fiction by every measure of human genetic variation. There simply is no difference among the “races” to suggest any significant biological difference. There are certain small genetic tendencies which cluster in the different “races,” far less than, by example, differences among domesticated animals.
I suggest that the origin of concept of “races” are the consequences of geographic clusters of similar human appearances at a certain location. These variations are seen in other species, too, indicating far more diversity in their appearance or behavior than in Homo sapiens.
Face is Race. What is race? How do we determine if a person is Black or Asian? Individuals can be identified by observers as Black or Asian, especially by observers who do not identify or resemble that identified ‘race.’ If we scientifically query people’s ability to identify certain others as “Black” or “Asian”, we will find powerful correlation of identifications, with little variance between the designated observers. The strength of such correlation gives weight to the false assumption that “race” refers to some essential element of a person’s existance, rather than what is merely the a prejudice of perception and nothing more.
What is the nature of classification?
We would agree that birds that are bright blue can all be described into a class-within-a-class, the bright blue type of birds. However, ornithologists would likely see no significance to the construction of such a set. Intellectually gathering blue birds together into one class, is an observational result of our contemplation. It is probably the result of our contemplation of what is simply coincidence.
We humans have inherited an astounding capacity for precise recognition and correlation of faces. It begins at birth. The incredibly perceptive recognition of faces begins before the infant even becomes able to reliably point both eyes at the same object. We have evolved in tribes to recognize the familiar, for our life depends on it. It has been shown that a child who has been exposed to a particular adult for at least five minutes within the first two weeks of life, will powerfully demonstrate signs of recognition when that individual is seen by the child two months later. No matter how intelligent we consider ourselves, something of innate genetic ability powerfully drives early human cognitive capacity. In a newborn person whose body is just becoming competent in temperature regulation, hardly any skill in body motion, only really notable for ability to nurse and digest, such a powerful skill as facial recognition is remarkable.
Why do we select this skill so powerfully? Could it be related to our tendency to classify each other by aspects of familiar appearance of our family and tribe?
Recognition and unfamiliarity in wartime.
The mirror image of recognizing one’s people, is fearing those who are different. This is well understood when we contemplate the immutable human habits of aggression and war. On Killing: The Psychological Cost of Learning to Kill in War and Society, by US Lt. Col. Dave Grossman, suggests a clear and objective classification in a certain innate capacity of humans to kill. This capacity is individual, and often never obvious unless any certain human is faced with fighting and killing an enemy. Not only do some human societies routinely lust for war, and others remain quietly peaceable, it appears that individuals, otherwise indistinguishable, can be divided into their ability to kill, or not kill, other human beings.
In war, there have been through time immemorial, the “Children of Cain” and the “Children of Abel.” There are people, who can kill in war; and others, seemingly identical, who can’t, even if they pay the cost with their own lives. Real generals have always known this difference is an immutable a factor in human combat. In a platoon there are those who can shoot at another human target, and those who can’t.
It is not at all unusual to discover, after a soldier is trained and demonstrates awesome capacity with all the elements of combat, a new soldier of great potential, that same soldier runs away at the first shock of battle. It is disappointing to the military that he or she belongs to, and frequently labeled cowardice - it is not so. It is an element of their ability in war. Similarly, there are certain nondescript soldiers who exhibit no particular expertise during training, but become furious, blazing soldiers upon engaging in battle. Little 2nd Lieutenant Audie Murphy, an American soldier in WW II, fought oughtnumbered and then singlehandedly against a January 26, 1945 assault in France. Incidentally, he was 5 feet 5 inches tall, but dauntless. He demonstrated his role as one of the Children of Cain.
The Children of Abel are not usually ostracized by their fellows, by their leaders, or the rest of the military. Those who cannot kill, would fulfill critical supporting roles that every combat unit needs to function. Whether or not a man or woman in combat can kill, a man or woman in combat can always carry ammunition, food, clean weapons, take watch - all the many necessities of war besides killing.
The Children of Cain are not those with antisocial personality disorder, sociopaths and psychopaths who populate every society in rare but disturbing numbers. The Children of Cain do not seem unusual to each other. It is only by comparison, only during warfare, that we see a difference between the two types. Simply, some shoot, some do not. Psychopaths do not fit in this structure, as they are abnormal and chillingly indifferent to human life in general. They seem not to recognize enemy or friend to be like themselves. All persons, to them, are prey. Psychopaths in a small unit during wartime are removed from the unit by any means possible; unpleasantly, but emphatically.
The characteristics of these two human types was long understood and silently respected. And then came Vietnam. In a cruel psychology experiment after the Korean War, the US Military decided that having Children of Abel in small units was somehow a burden upon the “true fighters.” This postulate turned military social doctrine on its head. All soldiers will become killers, decreed the military about their inductees, using clever psychological training. Instead of more fighters, many quite capable men were psychologically broken, and we have the tragedy of the veterans of the Vietnam War to show for it. Perhaps the Children of Abel can be made to kill; but a part of themselves likely dies. Many came back from Afghanistan, from Iraq, broken.
What is this about humans that makes us so? Remember most humans have only been out of Africa for 100,000 years, perhaps 1000 generations. There have been some groups out of Africa longer in Australia and the islands nearby. Yet in this short time, humans have developed our differences in appearance, and simultaneously learned the ability to perceive this chimerical concept, race.
The consequence of perception called human race is the result of human observation, with little intrinsic differences to note. Almost everything that is race is appearance.
And if people find a person who appears different than from your tribe and yourself, humans have an unpleasant predilection to kill them. In the study of warfare, the more ‘foreign’ an enemy appears, the easier they are to kill. Modern war propaganda relies heavily on the ability to distort the appearance of the enemy into something inhuman.
Perhaps this baleful tendency led to a universal human diaspora, fleeing each other, to scatter afar and develop distinctive appearances so as to recognize “us” from those who ought to be destroyed. I wonder if we should call ourselves Homo sapiens cruans, the slaughtering hominid.
Far later in our history, it became useful and necessary to trade and deal with foreigners, and to suppress our terror and disgust of each other. Christianity, for one, has been a social lubricant for trade. It is predicated upon the concept that the essence of persons does not lie in their appearance or identity, whether the Samaritan or others more foreign. Thankfully, this has been partially embedded in our culture as simple human decency; but it does not run very deep.
We have made strides away from our history as Homo sapiens cruans. As much as this fate seems to doom us with the original sin of xenophobia and racism, perhaps our choice to co-exist will slowly win out. The wisdom of religious persons like Reverend Martin Luther King Jr. and Mother Theresa, the words of all humanitarian thinkers of all across the globe, may prove to be more powerful than the instincts of fear and slaughter. But I fear that within us, the beast will remain.