Friday, February 28, 2025
Detroit’s late, great Black Mayor extraordinaire explains white supremacy in his autobiography _Hard stuff_ with a story he heard from his grandfather.
Detroit’s late, great Black Mayor extraordinaire explains white supremacy in his autobiography _Hard stuff_ with a story he heard from his grandfather.
<
“When I was old enough to begin contemplating the dynamics of labor unions, it was one of my Grandpa Young's Alabama tales that illustrated for me the fundamental racial dilemma inherent in collective bargaining. The way we had it figured at Maben's barbershop, racial unity in organized labor was the only way for blacks or whites to gain any leverage in the workplace. For the white man, however, the notion of rubbin shoulders with black men, while to his economic advantage, required him to surrender his sacred myth of superiority---- as i clearly understood when my grandfather' told me the story o fthe honey dippers.
In the old South, honey dippers were the men who drove the shit wagons and had the job of cleaning outhouses, which was done by removing buckets that had been placed in the holes or where there were no buckets, dipping out the waste with cups. Often, honey dippers came in pairs, one black and one white, the black one doing the dipping and the white one driving the mule team. When the black dipper had a bucket of shit, he would hand it up to the white driver, wo would fill the wagon with buckets to be hauled out to the dump. I one instance, however --according to my grandfather --- the driver suddenly had a change of heart and said to the dipper, "Tom, get up here in this wagon. " So Tom sat in the wagon and the white guy proceeded to hand him the bucket. When Tom's curiosity, finally got the better of him and he asked why they had swapped jobs, the white fellow told him, "I ain't ginna have no n-word handing me no shit"
“When I was old enough to begin contemplating the dynamics of labor unions, it was one of my Grandpa Young's Alabama tales that illustrated for me the fundamental racial dilemma inherent in collective bargaining. The way we had it figured at Maben's barbershop, racial unity in organized labor was the only way for blacks or whites to gain any leverage in the workplace. For the white man, however, the notion of rubbin shoulders with black men, while to his economic advantage, required him to surrender his sacred myth of superiority---- as i clearly understood when my grandfather' told me the story o fthe honey dippers.
In the old South, honey dippers were the men who drove the shit wagons and had the job of cleaning outhouses, which was done by removing buckets that had been placed in the holes or where there were no buckets, dipping out the waste with cups. Often, honey dippers came in pairs, one black and one white, the black one doing the dipping and the white one driving the mule team. When the black dipper had a bucket of shit, he would hand it up to the white driver, wo would fill the wagon with buckets to be hauled out to the dump. I one instance, however --according to my grandfather --- the driver suddenly had a change of heart and said to the dipper, "Tom, get up here in this wagon. " So Tom sat in the wagon and the white guy proceeded to hand him the bucket. When Tom's curiosity, finally got the better of him and he asked why they had swapped jobs, the white fellow told him, "I ain't ginna have no n-word handing me no shit"
Thursday, February 27, 2025
Wednesday, February 26, 2025
The poor think of themselves not as an exploited proletariat but as temporarily embarrassed millionaires - John Steinbeck
<
The entrepreneurial spirit, the spirit of hustling and bustling, hawking, and gambling, money grubbing, the spirit of making one's fortune, working too damn hard, is choking the American proletariat, the mass of makers of goods and services
Chris S True, we worship businessmen and 'success=$' too much in the US. It's killing us.
Proletariat sounds dated though. Must be a better term. 36 mins · Edited · Unlike · 1
Charles Brown Persuading so many working class people, wage-laborers, unemployed, middle income, low income people to dream of "owning their own businesses", "being their own bosses", prepares a cadre with the mentality of lower and middle managers for the big bourgeoisie, sergeants and lieutenants in the mass production armies of wage laborers.
2 mins · Like Charles Brown Proletariat = wage-laborers = 99%ers. Must use proletariat at the level of theoretical discussion, though. And is very important to get Americans, including especially political activists, to THINK MORE THEORETICALLY AND HISTORICALLY.
Charles Brown shared Ring of Fire's photo. December 9 at 7:24pm ·
Ring of Fire's photo.
Like · · Share Michael Rains, Ruth Quackenbush, Jan Stowe and 9 others like this.
Bruce Fleming Under educated over religious people dreaming it might one day happen to them. That's whose.
December 9 at 8:41pm · Unlike · 5
Charles Brown “Socialism never took root in America because the poor see themselves not as an exploited proletariat but as temporarily embarrassed millionaires " - John Steinbeck
The entrepreneurial spirit, the spirit of hustling and bustling, hawking, and gambling, money grubbing, the spirit of making one's fortune, working too damn hard, is choking the American proletariat, the mass of makers of goods and services
Chris S True, we worship businessmen and 'success=$' too much in the US. It's killing us.
Proletariat sounds dated though. Must be a better term. 36 mins · Edited · Unlike · 1
Charles Brown Persuading so many working class people, wage-laborers, unemployed, middle income, low income people to dream of "owning their own businesses", "being their own bosses", prepares a cadre with the mentality of lower and middle managers for the big bourgeoisie, sergeants and lieutenants in the mass production armies of wage laborers.
2 mins · Like Charles Brown Proletariat = wage-laborers = 99%ers. Must use proletariat at the level of theoretical discussion, though. And is very important to get Americans, including especially political activists, to THINK MORE THEORETICALLY AND HISTORICALLY.
Charles Brown shared Ring of Fire's photo. December 9 at 7:24pm ·
Ring of Fire's photo.
Like · · Share Michael Rains, Ruth Quackenbush, Jan Stowe and 9 others like this.
Bruce Fleming Under educated over religious people dreaming it might one day happen to them. That's whose.
December 9 at 8:41pm · Unlike · 5
Charles Brown “Socialism never took root in America because the poor see themselves not as an exploited proletariat but as temporarily embarrassed millionaires " - John Steinbeck
A thought is not what it thinks about but is artificially identified with what it thinks about
http://take10charles.blogspot.com/2021/11/a-thought-is-not-what-it-thinks-about.html
<<
A thought is not what it thinks about but is artificially identified with what it thinks about <<
By Charles Brown “My dialectic method is not only different from the Hegelian, but is its direct opposite. To Hegel, the life process of the human brain, i.e., the process of thinking, which, under the name of “the Idea,” he even transforms into an independent subject, is the demiurgos of the real world, and the real world is only the external, phenomenal form of “the Idea.” With me, on the contrary, the ideal is nothing else than the material world reflected by the human mind, and translated into forms of thought.” - Karl Marx
https://www.marxists.org/archive/marx/works/1867-c1/p3.htm
Perhaps to Hegel , the Idea is Language - Culture - Tradition- Custom - Religion -God , which derives from many generations of brains’ perceptual experience in objective reality or derives from those experiences as reflections of the material world into memories in many brains in the form of words . The Culture is a demiurge , or Natural Soul ( not supernatural, though it does give a certain finite immortality to dead generations through their words ) for individual living brains .
The external world is not literally the same thing as the Ideal ; BUT humans conceive of the external world in the form of ideas or identifying ideas with the external world . _The_ human mind is the accumulation of language by and in many brains , living and ancestral , in communication with each other . <
A thought is not what it thinks about . The Idea ( a culture , a tradition, a language) is not what it is an idea about . Ideas and thoughts are in the form of words , symbolic signs - signs with an arbitrary relation , not necessary or natural relation , between signifier and thing signified. Words are not what they represent, not what they refer to . Words are artificially identified with what they represent, with their meaning . They are not really what they represent . <
Saussure : the word “donut” is not a donut
Charles Brown : thus , by the word donut living generations can know about the tradition of dead generations eating donuts , because though the donuts are eaten and gone , the word “ donut” is not gone because it is not the donut . A word is not what it represents.
A word poses as identical with what it represents. So, Use of language is a unity of opposites : identification of something with something it is not ( by definition of a word or symbolic sign ). <
For humans , most things, objects , processes , are identified and shaped by the words that represent them . Language , symbolic signs , mediate our perception of objective reality . Is this Hegel’s sense of the Idea alienating itself as nature ? ( as I believe he says ). The Idea is a Language or a Culture -Tradition-Custom. All human individual brains or subjectivities or consciousnesses relate to objective reality or experience or perceive or practice in objective reality through words, culture , by conceiving of it in language .
In other words ( speaking of words ), the Idea as brain cells does not create objective reality like a 3-D printer , but humans only cognize and act in objective reality in ideas , words , sentences , paragraphs, books , libraries, songs , the World Wide Web. Words are invented by large numbers of individual brains , dead mostly and living ( now dead not dead when they invented the words . ) in the course of their practice in objective reality .
So, another rational , truthful kernel in the objective idealists ,Hegel and Plato , is that for human individual brains -subjectivities , pretty much everything in their objective world is known to them clothed in ideals-ideas -words. The ideal and the real are _not_ each other , but are a unity of difference, a sameness of differences, unity of opposites. This is Hegel’s famous unity of subject-object , a unity of opposites.
Remember words are constituted of the experiences of many generations of brains not just the brain of the individual thinking , perceiving and practicing in objective reality .
Like Isaac Newton , all humans stand on the shoulders of giants , are scientists. Individual only observations of reality, ignoring the experiences an Individual shares with many other individuals through words , as the basis for scientific discovery is the error of positivism-empiricism .
A thought is not what it thinks about but is artificially identified with what it thinks about <<
By Charles Brown “My dialectic method is not only different from the Hegelian, but is its direct opposite. To Hegel, the life process of the human brain, i.e., the process of thinking, which, under the name of “the Idea,” he even transforms into an independent subject, is the demiurgos of the real world, and the real world is only the external, phenomenal form of “the Idea.” With me, on the contrary, the ideal is nothing else than the material world reflected by the human mind, and translated into forms of thought.” - Karl Marx
https://www.marxists.org/archive/marx/works/1867-c1/p3.htm
Perhaps to Hegel , the Idea is Language - Culture - Tradition- Custom - Religion -God , which derives from many generations of brains’ perceptual experience in objective reality or derives from those experiences as reflections of the material world into memories in many brains in the form of words . The Culture is a demiurge , or Natural Soul ( not supernatural, though it does give a certain finite immortality to dead generations through their words ) for individual living brains .
The external world is not literally the same thing as the Ideal ; BUT humans conceive of the external world in the form of ideas or identifying ideas with the external world . _The_ human mind is the accumulation of language by and in many brains , living and ancestral , in communication with each other . <
A thought is not what it thinks about . The Idea ( a culture , a tradition, a language) is not what it is an idea about . Ideas and thoughts are in the form of words , symbolic signs - signs with an arbitrary relation , not necessary or natural relation , between signifier and thing signified. Words are not what they represent, not what they refer to . Words are artificially identified with what they represent, with their meaning . They are not really what they represent . <
Saussure : the word “donut” is not a donut
Charles Brown : thus , by the word donut living generations can know about the tradition of dead generations eating donuts , because though the donuts are eaten and gone , the word “ donut” is not gone because it is not the donut . A word is not what it represents.
A word poses as identical with what it represents. So, Use of language is a unity of opposites : identification of something with something it is not ( by definition of a word or symbolic sign ). <
For humans , most things, objects , processes , are identified and shaped by the words that represent them . Language , symbolic signs , mediate our perception of objective reality . Is this Hegel’s sense of the Idea alienating itself as nature ? ( as I believe he says ). The Idea is a Language or a Culture -Tradition-Custom. All human individual brains or subjectivities or consciousnesses relate to objective reality or experience or perceive or practice in objective reality through words, culture , by conceiving of it in language .
In other words ( speaking of words ), the Idea as brain cells does not create objective reality like a 3-D printer , but humans only cognize and act in objective reality in ideas , words , sentences , paragraphs, books , libraries, songs , the World Wide Web. Words are invented by large numbers of individual brains , dead mostly and living ( now dead not dead when they invented the words . ) in the course of their practice in objective reality .
So, another rational , truthful kernel in the objective idealists ,Hegel and Plato , is that for human individual brains -subjectivities , pretty much everything in their objective world is known to them clothed in ideals-ideas -words. The ideal and the real are _not_ each other , but are a unity of difference, a sameness of differences, unity of opposites. This is Hegel’s famous unity of subject-object , a unity of opposites.
Remember words are constituted of the experiences of many generations of brains not just the brain of the individual thinking , perceiving and practicing in objective reality .
Like Isaac Newton , all humans stand on the shoulders of giants , are scientists. Individual only observations of reality, ignoring the experiences an Individual shares with many other individuals through words , as the basis for scientific discovery is the error of positivism-empiricism .
Fentanyl of the Masses
The foundation of irreligious criticism is: Man (sic) makes religion, religion does not make man. Religion is, indeed, the self-consciousness and self-esteem of man who has either not yet won through to himself, or has already lost himself again. But man is no abstract being squatting outside the world. Man is the world of man – state, society. This state and this society produce religion, which is an inverted consciousness of the world, because they are an inverted world.
Religion is the general theory of this world, its encyclopaedic compendium, its logic in popular form, its spiritual point d’honneur, its enthusiasm, its moral sanction, its solemn complement, and its universal basis of consolation and justification. It is the fantastic realization of the human essence since the human essence has not acquired any true reality. The struggle against religion is, therefore, indirectly the struggle against that world whose spiritual aroma is religion.< Religious suffering is, at one and the same time, the expression of real suffering and a protest against real suffering. Religion is the sigh of the oppressed creature, the heart of a heartless world, and the soul of soulless conditions. It is the opium of the people.<
The abolition of religion as the illusory happiness of the people is the demand for their real happiness. To call on them to give up their illusions about their condition is to call on them to give up a condition that requires illusions. The criticism of religion is, therefore, in embryo, the criticism of that vale of tears of which religion is the halo.
Criticism has plucked the imaginary flowers on the chain not in order that man shall continue to bear that chain without fantasy or consolation, but so that he shall throw off the chain and pluck the living flower. The criticism of religion disillusions man, so that he will think, act, and fashion his reality like a man who has discarded his illusions and regained his senses, so that he will move around himself as his own true Sun. Religion is only the illusory Sun which revolves around man as long as he does not revolve around himself. div class="separator" style="clear: both;">
|||||||||<
The poor think of themselves not as an exploited proletariat but as temporarily embarrassed millionaires - John Steinbeck < <<
The entrepreneurial spirit, the spirit of hustling and bustling, hawking, and gambling, money grubbing, the spirit of making one's fortune, working too damn hard, is choking the American proletariat, the mass of makers of goods and services
Chris S True, we worship businessmen and 'success=$' too much in the US. It's killing us.
Proletariat sounds dated though. Must be a better term. 36 mins · Edited · Unlike · 1
Charles Brown Persuading so many working class people, wage-laborers, unemployed, middle income, low income people to dream of "owning their own businesses", "being their own bosses", prepares a cadre with the mentality of lower and middle managers for the big bourgeoisie, sergeants and lieutenants in the mass production armies of wage laborers.
2 mins · Like Charles Brown Proletariat = wage-laborers = 99%ers. Must use proletariat at the level of theoretical discussion, though. And is very important to get Americans, including especially political activists, to THINK MORE THEORETICALLY AND HISTORICALLY.
Charles Brown shared Ring of Fire's photo. December 9 at 7:24pm ·
Ring of Fire's photo.
Like · · Share Michael Rains, Ruth Quackenbush, Jan Stowe and 9 others like this.
Bruce Fleming Under educated over religious people dreaming it might one day happen to them. That's whose.
December 9 at 8:41pm · Unlike · 5
Charles Brown “Socialism never took root in America because the poor see themselves not as an exploited proletariat but as temporarily embarrassed millionaires " - John Steinbeck
Was Original Human Nature Social or Selfish ?
<
Is Human Nature Social or Selfish ? by Charles D. Brown
One way that anthropology might help us in the here and now is to bring scientific and biological paleontological evidence, from the Stone Age 100,000's of years ago, to bear on the question of what is human nature today ? Is it human nature to be greedy and selfish like Wall Street billionaires ? Or is it human nature to share and "love thy neighbor as thyself" ?
_Sapiens_" means "wise" In Latin. Homo sapiens (Latin: "wise human” ) is the scientific name for the human species. Homo is the human genus, which also includes Neanderthals and many other extinct species of hominin; H. sapiens is the only surviving species of the genus Homo. Modern humans are the subspecies Homo sapiens sapiens , which differentiates us as a sub-species from our closely related sub-species Homo sapiens Neanderthal. Some living humans have Neanderthal genes; this means that we are the same species as Neanderthals , who you have probably heard of.
What is humans' unique nature ? What is culture _
For anthropology, culture is the unique species characteristic of__homo sapiens_. In a sense, "culture" is another word for "wisdom", from the notion that humans are the species _homo wise_. It is humans’ socially learned practices, customs, language, traditions, beliefs, religion, spirituality that make us "wise" in so many ways, certainly clever and winners _as a species_ ( not just as a few "fit" Individuals) in the struggles and snuggles to survive as a species. Since the advent of civilization, sometimes it's not so clear how wise our culture makes us. Therein lies the central drama of the history of the human species. Nonetheless, clearly in the Stone Age, our having culture was a highly adaptive advantage over species that did not have culture , stone tools made through culture, etc., raising our species fitness.
This is evidenced by _homo sapiens_ expanding in population and therefore migrating to an expanded area of living space across the earth , out of what is now Africa to the other continents. Stone Age foraging and kinship organized societies were the mode of life for the vast majority of time of human species 'existence, 99 % or more. The first human societies had an extraordinarily high survival need to be able to rely on each other at levels of solidarity that we cannot even imagine. The intensity of the network of social connections of a band of 25 to 50 people living in the ecological food chain location would almost constitute a new level of organic organization and integrity above individual bodies; ancient kinship/culture systems as super-organic bodies; the human social group as harmonious multi-individual Body, organism. The Individual human bodies, all of the Some Bodies , were very frail and weak relative to the field of predators they were escaping. Up-right posture made them slower runners, too !
The dominance of the food chain that humans ultimately reached even in the Stone Age could be reached only by super-social , super internally-cooperative, super-intra-species harmony, because they had relatively frail _ individual_ bodies, and needed each other's support. It is clear to me that natural selection picked hominid groups with policies of "love thy neighbor as thyself " and "charity" over those that might have derived principles of "selfishness and greed", if there were any in the Stone Age before Civilization. Institutionalized war would have been selected against through the whole Stone Age.
Importantly, to the question “ is human nature social or selfish, this is when humans became “hardwired” genetically, establishing our NATURE ! Nat king Cole, Nature Boy https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Iq0XJCJ1Srw
Some one commented :OK, both. I could make arguments either way. People are social animals, but they also act in their best (often selfish) interests.
Charles Brown No, original humans, when human nature was established, when the homo sapiens genome originated relied more than other species on each other , on kinship relations. Human individual bodies were relatively frail and weak , and bi-pedalism made them slow runners. So, humans were very interdependent and highly social by nature. Our species name should be _homo socialis_. Selfishness and greed would have been selected against in the Darwinian sense. So, the answer is not both, but social. Greed and selfishness arise with civilization, after hundreds of thousands of years of "love thy neighbor as thyself" as the central principle of human societies , and the key to our adaptive advantage and ticket to the top of the food chain. Love thy neighbor as THYSELF is not self-less. It is wise in that the best way to love yourself is to get along with others well. Now individual mortal beings, animals, do have an instinct of self-preservation, to avoid death. But dangers of death or injury did not come from other individuals of the same species. War is against our individual instinct and our species's original nature, which was peaceful toward other members of the species.
" The decisive battle between early culture and human nature must have been waged on the field of primate sexuality…. Among subhuman primates sex had organized society; the customs of hunters and gatherers testify eloquently that now society was to organize sex…. In selective adaptation to the perils of the Stone Age, human society overcame or subordinated such primate propensities as selfishness, indiscriminate sexuality, dominance and brute competition. It substituted kinship and co-operation for conflict, placed solidarity over sex, morality over might. In its earliest days it accomplished the greatest reform in history, the overthrow of human primate nature, and thereby secured the evolutionary future of the species." — Sahlins, M. D. 1960 The origin of society. Scientific American 203(3): 76–87. (((((((((
Male supremacy, greed and war are not in our genes
The male supremacist family, private property (classes; greed), and the state ( special repressive apparatus ) arises as a complex together circa 6,000 years ago in Mesopotamia. They are still together in a complex that dominates the human species in 2018. Before that for the about 2.5 million years of the Stone Age ( true Civilization) there was gender equivalence, sharing and peace in the species; that's when we our Homo Sapiens genome was substantially "hardwired " . So, Male supremacy and class divided society and war are not in our gene
((((((((( AI Overview "Genetically hardwired" means that a trait or behavior is determined primarily by an organism's genes, essentially "built-in" at the genetic level, instinctive; and not significantly influenced by learning factors; it implies a predisposition towards a specific action or characteristic due to one's DNA makeup.
Key points about "genetically hardwired": Innate behavior:
Often used to describe behaviors that appear naturally without needing to be learned, like a baby's reflex to suckle. Evolutionary perspective:
Evolutionary biologists often use this term to describe traits that were advantageous for survival and reproductive success in a species' evolutionary history and therefore became genetically encoded.
Example usage:
Humans are considered to be genetically hardwired for socialiality, solidarity with each other, social harmony, because social harmony was critical to adaptation and population growth through the Stone Age. Important consideration:
Not entirely deterministic: While "hardwired" implies a strong genetic influence, it doesn't mean that learning plays no role. Most complex behaviors are likely a combination of genetic predisposition and learned factors.
Is Human Nature Social or Selfish ? by Charles D. Brown
One way that anthropology might help us in the here and now is to bring scientific and biological paleontological evidence, from the Stone Age 100,000's of years ago, to bear on the question of what is human nature today ? Is it human nature to be greedy and selfish like Wall Street billionaires ? Or is it human nature to share and "love thy neighbor as thyself" ?
_Sapiens_" means "wise" In Latin. Homo sapiens (Latin: "wise human” ) is the scientific name for the human species. Homo is the human genus, which also includes Neanderthals and many other extinct species of hominin; H. sapiens is the only surviving species of the genus Homo. Modern humans are the subspecies Homo sapiens sapiens , which differentiates us as a sub-species from our closely related sub-species Homo sapiens Neanderthal. Some living humans have Neanderthal genes; this means that we are the same species as Neanderthals , who you have probably heard of.
What is humans' unique nature ? What is culture _
For anthropology, culture is the unique species characteristic of__homo sapiens_. In a sense, "culture" is another word for "wisdom", from the notion that humans are the species _homo wise_. It is humans’ socially learned practices, customs, language, traditions, beliefs, religion, spirituality that make us "wise" in so many ways, certainly clever and winners _as a species_ ( not just as a few "fit" Individuals) in the struggles and snuggles to survive as a species. Since the advent of civilization, sometimes it's not so clear how wise our culture makes us. Therein lies the central drama of the history of the human species. Nonetheless, clearly in the Stone Age, our having culture was a highly adaptive advantage over species that did not have culture , stone tools made through culture, etc., raising our species fitness.
This is evidenced by _homo sapiens_ expanding in population and therefore migrating to an expanded area of living space across the earth , out of what is now Africa to the other continents. Stone Age foraging and kinship organized societies were the mode of life for the vast majority of time of human species 'existence, 99 % or more. The first human societies had an extraordinarily high survival need to be able to rely on each other at levels of solidarity that we cannot even imagine. The intensity of the network of social connections of a band of 25 to 50 people living in the ecological food chain location would almost constitute a new level of organic organization and integrity above individual bodies; ancient kinship/culture systems as super-organic bodies; the human social group as harmonious multi-individual Body, organism. The Individual human bodies, all of the Some Bodies , were very frail and weak relative to the field of predators they were escaping. Up-right posture made them slower runners, too !
The dominance of the food chain that humans ultimately reached even in the Stone Age could be reached only by super-social , super internally-cooperative, super-intra-species harmony, because they had relatively frail _ individual_ bodies, and needed each other's support. It is clear to me that natural selection picked hominid groups with policies of "love thy neighbor as thyself " and "charity" over those that might have derived principles of "selfishness and greed", if there were any in the Stone Age before Civilization. Institutionalized war would have been selected against through the whole Stone Age.
Importantly, to the question “ is human nature social or selfish, this is when humans became “hardwired” genetically, establishing our NATURE ! Nat king Cole, Nature Boy https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Iq0XJCJ1Srw
Some one commented :OK, both. I could make arguments either way. People are social animals, but they also act in their best (often selfish) interests.
Charles Brown No, original humans, when human nature was established, when the homo sapiens genome originated relied more than other species on each other , on kinship relations. Human individual bodies were relatively frail and weak , and bi-pedalism made them slow runners. So, humans were very interdependent and highly social by nature. Our species name should be _homo socialis_. Selfishness and greed would have been selected against in the Darwinian sense. So, the answer is not both, but social. Greed and selfishness arise with civilization, after hundreds of thousands of years of "love thy neighbor as thyself" as the central principle of human societies , and the key to our adaptive advantage and ticket to the top of the food chain. Love thy neighbor as THYSELF is not self-less. It is wise in that the best way to love yourself is to get along with others well. Now individual mortal beings, animals, do have an instinct of self-preservation, to avoid death. But dangers of death or injury did not come from other individuals of the same species. War is against our individual instinct and our species's original nature, which was peaceful toward other members of the species.
" The decisive battle between early culture and human nature must have been waged on the field of primate sexuality…. Among subhuman primates sex had organized society; the customs of hunters and gatherers testify eloquently that now society was to organize sex…. In selective adaptation to the perils of the Stone Age, human society overcame or subordinated such primate propensities as selfishness, indiscriminate sexuality, dominance and brute competition. It substituted kinship and co-operation for conflict, placed solidarity over sex, morality over might. In its earliest days it accomplished the greatest reform in history, the overthrow of human primate nature, and thereby secured the evolutionary future of the species." — Sahlins, M. D. 1960 The origin of society. Scientific American 203(3): 76–87. (((((((((
Male supremacy, greed and war are not in our genes
The male supremacist family, private property (classes; greed), and the state ( special repressive apparatus ) arises as a complex together circa 6,000 years ago in Mesopotamia. They are still together in a complex that dominates the human species in 2018. Before that for the about 2.5 million years of the Stone Age ( true Civilization) there was gender equivalence, sharing and peace in the species; that's when we our Homo Sapiens genome was substantially "hardwired " . So, Male supremacy and class divided society and war are not in our gene
((((((((( AI Overview "Genetically hardwired" means that a trait or behavior is determined primarily by an organism's genes, essentially "built-in" at the genetic level, instinctive; and not significantly influenced by learning factors; it implies a predisposition towards a specific action or characteristic due to one's DNA makeup.
Key points about "genetically hardwired": Innate behavior:
Often used to describe behaviors that appear naturally without needing to be learned, like a baby's reflex to suckle. Evolutionary perspective:
Evolutionary biologists often use this term to describe traits that were advantageous for survival and reproductive success in a species' evolutionary history and therefore became genetically encoded.
Example usage:
Humans are considered to be genetically hardwired for socialiality, solidarity with each other, social harmony, because social harmony was critical to adaptation and population growth through the Stone Age. Important consideration:
Not entirely deterministic: While "hardwired" implies a strong genetic influence, it doesn't mean that learning plays no role. Most complex behaviors are likely a combination of genetic predisposition and learned factors.
