Verified by 
Recently Meryl Strep asserted that “We are all Africans” and various people have reacted to this in a very human way—by using a noteworthy public statement to advance their political goals. And, as I am as species-typical as the next guy, I’m going to do the same. Except, my goal is unifying rather than divisive.
One of us! One of us!
Many things divide us. Some of those things are deep, and some are shallow. One consistent finding in social psychology is that pretty much any trivial superficial thing can be used by demagogues (or even the well-intentioned) to divide and conquer. Demagogues are by their nature shameless, of course. They will twist history, or only tell de-contextualized parts of it, they will focus on accent, skin color, sexuality, gender, minor differences in belief. And we fall for it every time. They will dress it up, of course. “This time it’s different. This time the difference really does have moral significance…really and truly…these people--you don’t have to listen to them—they aren’t as fully human as you.”
We can even—as Jane Eliot spectacularly demonstrated the day after Dr Martin Luther King’s murder, make eye color the focus of class war. Her mini experiment is widely known and justly celebrated, but I think many people miss one of the most poignant parts of it. This is when she was interviewed later and realized how much she hated the “superior” blue eyed kids. “They knew, really quickly, how to play the game” she said.
"The superior value of the oppressed"
Worse was to follow. When the roles were reversed, the previously downtrodden turned into the oppressors. Much as we would like to believe that the oppressed are morally superior—by nature—the truth is that the ability to dehumanize is itself species typical. Bertrand Russell warned us about the seductive lure of the “Superior Value of the Oppressed”. It’s tough to recognize—but all human beings think of themselves as hard done by…All demagogues start by saying: "It's time we got our own back".
The implications of this are profound. We are able, on the basis of utter triviality, to disregard others, dehumanize them, see them as lesser. And, if this has been done to us, rather than learn from it, we can use it as the justification for our own dehumanizing of others in return. The historical list of this makes for depressing reading. From hurtful talk and ostracism through denial of full rights, lynching, and genocide and everything in between these way points.
Putting the "sapiens" in "homo sapiens".
We can’t stop the demagogues from trying to manipulate us, or stop their lackeys from chiming in. But we can do something to protect ourselves. As always—knowledge banishes fear of the unknown. One species typical trait is the ability to stop and assess our gut reactions in the light of evidence and argument--to reason. We have, as Daniel Kahneman emphasized--two systems of assessment, fast (gut) and slow (reason). And I think we should be very suspicious of anyone who tells us that a tribal allegiance--one of their asserting--trumps our general membership of the species homo sapiens. But--and it's a big "but"--its not enough to be sapiens--you need to act like it.
While some prominent commentators can’t be bothered to take the trouble to distinguish evolutionary psychology from behavioral genetics (“because biology is hard, innit?”) the fields are very different. Genetic variation (heritability—the basis of behavioral genetics) is the engine of evolution—but most variation is harmful or neutral, or only selected for in local patterns or with ebbs and flows.
For the most part humans are genetically identical, and complex gene-based changes take a long time to produce functional changes. These facts are the meat and drink of evolutionary psychology—the recognition that the bulk of what makes us human is common core. And that common core was formed in Africa over the course of millennia in response to specific patterns of threats and opportunities.
This doesn’t make us all robots. But it does mean that if we want to understand the way we are, all talk of “learning versus instinct” is utterly vacuous. What we want to know is why some forms of learning are easy to acquire, hard to extinguish, easily transmitted, show functional properties and so on. Language is a prime example. You almost can’t stop a child acquiring it and there are no “primitive languages”. While, on the other hand, some patterns of learning are tough to acquire, easily lost, or downright impossible. Like advanced maths for most of us. These patterns constitute human nature.
And to understand those patterns we have to pay attention to the fact that for millennia we were evolving on the Savannah plains of Africa and this Johnny-come-lately stuff about cities and writing is just that. Novel.
Just as studying astronomy is a deeply humbling experience (because there is no way that the vast wobbly universe can possibly be for our benefit) the study of evolution is a deeply unifying one. We are all kin. No human on the planet is more than a 50th cousin of anyone else. Any two humans—even ones as historically divergent as the Aboriginal Australians and the Inuit--are more closely related genetically to one another than two chimpanzees on opposite sides of Africa are to each other.
We might not seem alike—but that’s because one of our species typical traits is to emphasize minor differences, probably because in the past those minor differences like accent or dress were proxies for membership of groups competing for the same resources. But now our primary threats are from lack of co-operation not from direct competition with one another. However, we can make the decision that—OK, we might well be a naturally divisive species, but we are not going to be divisive today. Try it, fellow African.
