I am an anthropologist who teaches a History of Africa course. I am
new to this list, but have lurked for a couple of weeks to understand
the tone of the exchanges. The tone is very high--a relief after
some of the contentious anthropology lists to which I subscribe--and
I have found the information conveyed most helpful. Especially
interesting has been the discussion of rape by Moroccan troops in
Italy.
Just for your interest, and without going into all the problems and
complexities of modern evolutionary theory, let me suggest a
sociobiological hypothesis which is not original with me. In
evolutionary terms, it makes perfect sense for conquerors to take
steps to impregnate the women of the conquered population. How
better to integrate the following generations into the culture and
political domain of the conquerors?
Admittedly, this behavior makes little sense in the case of modern
warfare (most modern warfare--Bosnia might be an exception), but if
this behavior is a relic of our very long history as human beings,
and hominids before that, and nothing has happened to render the
behavior contrary to the exigencies of natural selection, then the
behavior could easily persist.
I am not a competent or enthusiastic sociobiologist, and raise this
point only to illustrate that some of the questions posed about the
role of rape in warfare might need to be examined in a much more
general context. So-called "primitive" warfare often involves
incorporation of individuals from conquered populations into the gene
pool of the conquerors.
Anthropologist Napoleon Chagnon, who is not without his detractors
in the profession, has argued that reproductive success by individual
men among the Yanomamo Indians of Brazil and Venezuela is linked to
the success of individuals in killing rivals. I don't know if this
finding is borne out by the evidence, let alone whether rape in
warfare has evolutionary significance, but I personally find such
ideas fun to play around with. :-)