Prompt: How do colonialism — and its overcoming — figure into the approaches to prehistory offered by three or four authors, among them Charles Darwin, Sigmund Freud, Cheikh Anta Diop, Claude Lévi-Strauss, and Robert Ardrey?
The definition of “colonialism” never “overcomes” from prehistoric times, it “evolves” into an adaptive state that transforms into microaggressions in the present days. The assumption to put forth in this essay is that the foundation of colonialism rooted from nationalism and racism. Such race/national superiority drives many authors in their narrate for prehistoric times. For the purpose of exploring both sides of the prehistoric human arguments: barbaric non-european origin, and racial diversity in human origin. This essay will adopt Claude Levi-Strauss’s known theory of ‘Binary opposites’ in inspecting the polarized narratives of how historians/anthropologists figure into the prehistory times. Since binary opposites introduce approaches to human origin in juxtaposition, the essay will evaluate the idea of “Killer Apes” from Robert Ardry versus texts like “Race and History UNESCO” from Levi-Strauss and “Black Egyptian” from Cheikh Anta Diop to elicit the polarized stance of approaching colonialism during the prehistoric.
Majority of the justifications for colonialism comes from the sense of superiority of one race over the other. This reflects in how human origin is packaged from Robert Ardrey. He believes that humans differ with animals to a degree but not kind. Inheriting Darwin’s theory, Ardrey proposed human origin traced back to our ancestor from Australopithecus africanus, so called the “killer apes”. The description for our human origin “killer apes” lies in many social behaviors that shows what fits into the framework of “barbaric”: in which being territorial and aggressive is the key highlights throughout Ardrey’s work in Territorial Imperative and African Genesis. However, to put our perspective out of the box, Levi-Strauss pointed out a very unconventional outlook on prehistoric humans. The fact that none of the historians, anthropologists, nor archeologist has any personal contact with a vanished civilisation, much knowledge is inferred upon writings and historical monuments. With the acknowledgement of that, “contemporary societies which have no knowledge of
writing, like those which we call ‘savage’ or ‘primitive’… diversity of human cultures is much greater and richer than we can ever hope to appreciate to the full ‘’ (Levi-Strauss, 97). Therefore, the main purpose of this essay is to reframe ourselves from subjectively viewing the prehistoric times from the narrator’s voice; instead, utilize this opportunity in seeking to find a relatively non-polarized truth out of what constitutes human origin and ‘overcoming’ colonialism.
On the tangent of appreciating the diversity of human cultures, one must refute the generalization of the Africans. There is a major lack of understanding of Africans in which stereotypes and labels of physical appearances are given in underestimating the racial diversity. To refrain from non-African historians and anthropologists narrating African stories, Cheikh Anta Diop provides a deeper inclusivity to the pre-colonial African culture. He introduces the predynastic Egyptian populations as non-singularity. Instead of simply a pure race, it is composed of multiple racial elements: “one-third Negroid, one-third Mediterranean, one-tenth Cro-Magnoid, and one-fifth individual more or less mixed”. (Diop, 131). Egyptian populations during predynastic are stigmatized as little clusters while the white-Egyptian civilization is developing. Diop introduces another perspective of how Blacks were first gathered over valleys before migrating out to different directions. He pointed out that “Negro in the Nile Valley as early as prehistoric times” (Diop, 133) and it rules out the belief of monopoly of the white race in early Egyptian civilization.
The oversimplification of prehistoric humans goes beyond simply the origin for the formation of societies, it also extends to morality. Robert Ardrey believes that the morality for humans and animals has no difference since it is driven by territory principle. He believes that the external and internal threats ‘amity-enmity complex’ is where individuals can find identity, motivations, and security. From his observational behavior study, he resembles humans with animals by behavior in territory in which “animals evade predators — that determines whether bodily characters have selective advantage or not.” (Ardrey, 9). The
territorial behavior is the core of how he believes human evolutionary process from animals. Territorial instinct is the key rationale behind many Ardrey’s theories. He believes that the
natural selection, origin of nationalism, patriotism, war, and social order all traces back to territoriality. On top of such seemingly controversial statement, Ardrey also overthrew some theories from the past philosophers like Freud and Darwin by saying that “territorial compulsion is more pervasive and more powerful than sex” (Ardrey, 18). This oversimplifications in human’s natural-state desire and reduction in complexity for the rationale of our civilization directly conflict with both Levi-Strauss and Diop’s theory.
Both Levi-Strauss and Diop believe in the diversity of beings and its origin. Diop elaborates from the idea of totemism, matriarchy, and kingship which all influence colonialism from an African prehistoric standpoint. He states that the idea of “ ‘taboo’ character in animals and plants in Egypt corresponds to totemism as it exists throughout Black Africa” (Diop, 134). The idea of totemism is a social construct which shows human consciousness, and it also extends to the idea of matriarchy where marriage with a tribe’s sister stemming from. He also points out that the idea of totemism is absent in the white society, which further proves his point of human origin coming from African civilization. Moreover, the idea of Kingship is brought up from the Diop passage as well. He compares kings in traditional African kingdoms, and also outlines how kings work in his home country — Senegal. The practice in replacing kings dependent on their vital strength stems from Black society, and also, again, proves the idea of ‘replacing’ the weak for the strong aligns with the idea of colonialism.
Having these social developments shows the complexity of human minds. Instead of simply Ardrey’s belief of territorial desire, Diop’s theory in kingships goes above and beyond to influence nationalism and colonialism. For 19th century philosophers, Cheikh Anta Diop and Robert Ardrey experienced post WWII where there is a decline of the European empire colonial era and transformation to rise of neo-colonialism from the United States and Soviet Union. Despite studying the prehistoric time, their motivations in writing are intrinsically
impacted by the period they live in. Ardrey put great emphasis on the absolute — hierarchy and social order of the societies while Levi-Strauss proposed relativism — culturally, racially, and socially speaking in the societies.
Premodern historical colonialism is the origin of colonialism during the 19th century. The ancient Egyptians located at lower Nile River created empires and pharaohs that unites their religious belief into social order. In African Origin, Diop highlights that cultural continuity across the Africans is more valued than the varied development of diverse ethnic groups. This reflects in his text for the ancient Egyptians where we find the cohesiveness in their identity is more than the differences. “Essential identity of genius, culture, and race, today all Negroes can legitimately trace their culture to ancient Egypt and build a modern culture on that foundation” (Diop, 140). The great civilizations that Egyptians created such as the monumental pyramids and temples, knowledge in mathematics, medicines and agricultures are all products of colonization. The outcome from colonization of exploiting resources and labor from other races propels the succeeding empires such as the Greek, Romans, VIkings, and other European empires to follow the footsteps and ideologies of the Ancient Egyptians.
From Ardrey’s text in African Genesis, “territorial defense upon social order, and the exquisite relationship of social order to acceptance of responsibility by the dominant hierarchy” (Ardrey, 18). He explains his thoughts on territorial aggression through showing domination from rank and file. This corresponds to the idea of colonialism in which ‘hierarchy’ and ‘social order’ are both fundamental drives for countries in legitimizing oneself to conquer the other. The word ‘colony’ in the Latin definition is ‘a place for agriculture’, and the land for agriculture corresponds to Ardrey’s core belief in territorial space. The implementation of absolute-power words like ‘dominant’ is also stemming from the idea of imperialism which is often discussed simultaneously with colonialism. The motivations for Euorpeans in conquering lands and imposing imperialism on the ‘weaker’ state all relates to the idea of colonialism — the superiority of Europeans in casting their political domination to less powerful countries to increase their power and wealth.
Despite coming from disparate arguments, Levi-Strauss’s approach in Race and History through his argument in relativism also impacted colonialism. His text shows a great representation of the anti-colonialism force that is the closest to ‘overcoming’ colonialism. However, observing from prehistoric times to the 21st century where neo-colonialism is adapting into different forms, ‘overcoming’ will be recognized as ‘evolving’ throughout the rest of the passage. Levi-Strauss’s emphasis on the equality and no inferiority in race or cultural differences is the counter-argument to Ardrey’s and the rise of colonialism. His idea of cultural relativism and where there is no such thing as discrimination to cultures and customs with inferior and superior speaks to the condemnation of Europeans superiority and nationalism. He believes that the diversity of cultures shouldn’t be threatened by uniformity of some power. For the sake of preserving
diversity, we must accept differences and encourage collaborations. He introduces the idea of “progress” which is also a very important idea that ties back to prehistoric times overcoming colonialism. The struggle for progress lies in a paradox in which collaboration facilitates progress, yet, in the process of collaboration, the differences between people will gradually evened out. This contradiction is a natural product of progress and cannot be resolved. But this is when his rebuttal to the superior-race Europeans comes in: “man must, no doubt, guard against the blind particularism which would restrict the dignity of humankind to a single race” (Levi-Strauss, 132). The overcoming of colonialism is to be consciously aware of differences between others and man shall not lose sight of inclusivity. While in the process of seeking “universally applicable” resolution to unite mankind we should also appreciate the diversity in ways of pursuit in life such as cultural practices and physical differences.
On the contrary side of Levi-Strauss’s belief, Ardrey’s reasoning behind the relationship of the prehistoric killer ape with weapons also shapes the essence of colonialism during the 19th century in a different way. The rationale behind weapons stems from materialism where physical goods strengthen one’s power. The idea of weapons being introduced to prehistoric people is where the idea of materialism is being found. Besides physical power, the utilization of materials in strengthening oneself is the origin of prehistoric humans’ driving forces in adopting weapons into their life. Since military weapons are a critical leverage that plays a role in conquering lands. The armed ‘barbaric’ killer ape is where evolution starts happening from Ardrey’s standpoint. He believes it is the transition of possessing arms and the coordination of the brain in using tools is when brian development appears. “…ancestral killer ape meant the margin of survival…,use of weapons multiplying demands on the nervous system for coordination of music church sight.” (Ardrey, 29). Evolutions happen when there is a physical need for survival. The adaptation of weapons to survive during prehistoric times requires the evolution of brains for humans. But with the use of weapons, it is also where it makes oneself more powerful than the other.
This happens in the colonization period in the 19th century as well, the superiority for the advancing Europeans during industrialisation empowers them as the stronger state. This gives them the opportunity to control the majority of the resources on Earth and after WWII, this colonialism shifted into the post-colonialism — neocolonialism belief.
In conclusion, Diop, Ardrey, and Levi-Strauss all contributed to the upbringing and ‘evolving’ of colonialism. The power dynamic struggle, racial origin debate, and formulation of their social construct are all references for modern society even to present times. Despite having contrasting lenses in how they view the prehistoric world, all their narratives and invention of some mentality are all roots to the overcome and adaptations of nationalism and colonialism in the 19th century.
References Work Cited:
Claude Levi-Strauss, “Race and History” (1953–1954)
UNESCO Statement on Race
Tristes Tropiques (1955)
Cheikh Anta Diop, The African Origin of Civilization (1955)
Robert Ardrey, African Genesis (1961)
Territorial Imperative (1966)
