AN100 last quiz notes

pdf

School

Wilfrid Laurier University *

*We aren’t endorsed by this school

Course

100

Subject

Anthropology

Date

Apr 3, 2024

Type

pdf

Pages

Uploaded by MasterField13930

Readings/Videos ● Textbook chapter: Chapter 9: Resolving Conflict in Sociocultural Anthropology: A Problem-Based Approach ● “R. Brian Ferguson discusses ‘Violence: An Anthropology of War” part 1 (4:08 minutes) ● 6:10 - 10:39 ● Egyptians in the southern levan they changed because of pharos and it became violent ● Napoleon yanomami ancestors in stone age. Early 17th century ● “R. Brian Ferguson discusses ‘Violence: An Anthropology of War” part 2 (1:42 minutes) ● “Margaret MacMillan: How War Made Humanity” part 1 (2:11 minutes) ● “Margaret MacMillan: How War Made Humanity” part 2 (2:53 minutes) ● “Margaret MacMillan: How War Made Humanity ” part 3 (3:08 minutes) Learning Outcomes By the end of this lesson, you should be able to: 1. Explain how anthropologists define violence, war, conflict, and peace. 2. Characterize and compare societies described as “peaceful” and “fierce”. 3. Summarize rhetoric that is used to justify collective violence. 4. Identify how states use both ideology and violence to control their populations. 5. Review anthropologists’ approach towards studying violence, conflict, and peace. 6. Explain how the abuses of Indigenous children in Canada constitute genocide. Key Terms Violence

“Is an innate human tendency and that peace is simply the absence of violence” (Robbins and Cummings 2017, 255). Warfare “Can be defined as systematic, organized, and institutionalized fighting between different groups” which started 10,000 years ago (Ferraro and Andreatta 2014, 338). Peace Is not an absence of war, it is a virtue, a state of mind, a disposition for benevolence, confidence, justice (Spinoza in Sponsel and George 2022, ix). Conflict resolution “Is seen in both domestic and international situations. Conflict resolution can signify anything from peer mediation in school systems to peacebuilding efforts in civil wars and arbitration of consumer- retailer disputes” (Davidheiser 2007, 11).

“WAR AND SLAVERY IN SUDAN” In keeping with our tradition of starting each lesson with a short autoethnography, this final week you will read an excerpt from a book War and Slavery in Sudan by Sudanese scholar Jok Madut Jok. Trained in the anthropology of health, he holds a Ph.D. from the University of California, Los Angeles (UCLA). I am a South Sudanese anthropologist who has been studying Sudan all my academic life. I now teach at a university in the United States. My career as a Sudanist, without a doubt, began with the knowledge I acquired from personal experience as a native son. But this knowledge became more specialized after 1993 when I undertook field study in South Sudan for my doctorate at the University of California, Los Angeles. That research project examined the impact of the unresolved North-South civil war on the family, gender relations, and reproductive health in northern Bahr el-Ghazal in southwestern Sudan. Moreover, while I was in Bahr el-Ghazal conducting research, I also worked for a humanitarian relief agency. Having been seriously understudied due to war, which made travel in the region difficult, South Sudan presents an ambitious researcher with the temptation to do it all. Therefore, while I was documenting the interaction between the behaviors and attitudes of militarized youth, on the one hand, and traditional gender relations, on the other, during my first period of fieldwork, my research extended into more issues than I had planned. Such topics as household decision making regarding pregnancy, abortion, sexuality and sexual violence, sexually transmitted diseases, childbirth, care for the young, and other reproductive health issues took the center stage of my dissertation research. Yet, the temptation to document other tragedies such as government militia raiding, displacement, loss of assets, preemptive migration, and the dismal future of the family was far too great to resist. By 1995, about twelve years after the second round of the civil war began, South Sudan had lost a third of its population to war, famine, and displacement to the North or neighboring countries. Suffering abounded and there was an immediate need to understand it. This book chronicles the current wave of slavery in Sudan (…) the current revival began in 1983 with the beginning of the second round of North-South conflict. Northern Sudanese Arabs capture and sell (or exploit in other ways) large numbers of African Sudanese, primarily the Dinka, Nuer, and Nuba of central Sudan.

Your preview ends here

Eager to read complete document? Join bartleby learn and gain access to the full version

Access to all documents
Unlimited textbook solutions
24/7 expert homework help

The problem with writing this book is that its topic is controversial. When one writes from the perspective of one’s own people and when one has a responsibility toward the whole country, there is a certain degree of ambivalence involved. There is no doubt that I will be seen as focusing on the concerns of Southerners, but if I do not focus on the victims of the crisis I am studying, I could also be blamed for trying to marginalize the very people whose agony I am trying to expose. I am conscious of the possibility that my having only worked in the South could bias my views. But I have made an equally conscious attempt to be objective in presentation. While no one writing on Sudan’s tumultuous and tragic history can claim absolute neutrality, I have tried to express the concerns of Southerners without being anti-North. In this lesson, among many other things, we will explore challenges faced by anthropologists conducting research in a war zone. One of them, as Jok points out, is the fact that most topics are understudied, given the difficult and often dangerous access to the field. Another challenge is linked to the fact that war has its own rules, inevitably encroaching upon one’s research. Regardless of one’s research interests, anthropologists must address the impact of war on people’s lives. Furthermore, a considerable number of anthropologists investigating communities ravaged by war often have roots in those very communities. This personal connection poses a challenge as it may result in a lack of adequate distance from the researched topic. While scholars recognize the imperative to exercise caution and not to choose sides, striving to remain as fair and objective as possible to all parties involved in the conflict, this is no small feat. Failing to do so might have long-term negative consequences. Consequently, conducting anthropological research in a war zone carries significant responsibility. IS CONFLICT INEVITABLE? Political anthropology is the field that examines how people handle disputes (Lavenda and Schulz 2020, 189). Its findings suggest that all societies develop strategies to manage conflict if they want to survive (Nanda and Warms 2018, 167). These strategies and their outcomes, as authors of our textbook observe, vary greatly. “In some cases, conflict results in collective violence” (Robbins et al. 2017, 255; Kottak 2022, 118). In other instances, more peaceful forms of conflict resolution are preferred. Before we take a closer look at these different outcomes, we first should understand what conflict and its potential results—peace and violence—mean (Robbins et al. 2017, 255).

Violence and Peace Violence “is a category in between peaceful disputing, and major planned warfare and fighting” (Robbins et al. 2017, 256). Peace is commonly defined as the absence of violence. Thus, because it is often thought of negatively as the lack of war or aggression, we might have a limited understanding of how we can attain it. In other words, our attention is often directed towards preventing war, rather than figuring out what conditions could help us to sustain peace (Sponsel and Gregor 2022, ix). To cite Canadian anthropologist, Roger Lohmann, “peace is a group activity, carried on by members of one community toward members of another community, in which the primary purpose is to maintain mutual benefit by successfully deploying means for enhancing political relations and preventing violence, by either directing contacts with goodwill or avoiding one another with an attitude of peace” (in Robbins et al. 2017, 256). The Question of Human Nature The ongoing debate over whether human nature is inherently violent or peaceful spans centuries. A very pessimistic view was put forth by Thomas Hobbes, asserting that human beings are inherently prone to aggression to the extent that without a controlling state, they will harm others (Robbins et al. 2017, 263). The views of this 16th-century English philosopher were in alignment with a popular Christian belief of the time regarding the “innate depravity” of people (Sponsel and Gregor 2022, xii). Another similar opinion on this topic was formulated by the founder of psychoanalysis, Sigmund Freud, who argued that “aggression is part of their [human] instinctive endowment” (Sponsel and Gregor 2022, x). Given the fact that the period in which this Austrian neurologist lived was characterized by wars, it is not surprising that his views were so grim. Much has changed in the past century. Although anthropologists recognize that “collective violence is nearly universally sanctioned” (Robbins et al. 2017, 256), the prevailing belief among them is that the root causes of violence lie in social, historical, cultural, material, and ecological conditions (Nanda and Warms 2018, 172) rather than in an innate aggressive tendency (Robbins et al. 2017, 256). Furthermore, some

argue that compelling historical evidence supports the claim that humans are capable of building peaceful societies. Peaceful Societies Anthropologists agree that peaceful societies are uncommon. Some “’enclaved societies’, such as the Hutterites or the Amish, which cultivate a distinct culture and live within a larger society” are recognized as such (Knox Dentan in Sponsel and Gregor 2022, 70). The members of these communities oppose violence on religious grounds (Robbins et al. 2017, 260). Consequently, in 350 years, there has been no instance of a Hutterite killing anyone (Knox Dentan in Sponsel and Gregor 2022, 70). According to anthropologist Thomas Gregor, peaceful societies are hard to come by, but they are most likely to be found among some hunter-gatherers, for example the Hadza of Tanzania, the Arapesh of New Guinea, the Zapotec Indians of Mexico, the Inuit, the Ju/’hoansi, the Semai of Malaysia, and the Xinguano of the Amazon (Sutton 2021, 81; Sponsel and Gregor 2022, xii; Ferraro and Andreatta 2014, 338; Robbins et al. 2017, 261). There are several reasons for the reluctance of foragers to engage in prolonged warfare. First, they lack ownership of land, eliminating one major reason for war—territorial disputes. Second, as small-scale communities, most members are related, decreasing the motivation to harm potential family members. Moreover, the unpredictable food supply of hunters and gatherers makes engagement in extended combat physically risky. Finally, the absence of centralized authority that is required for orchestrating and funding prolonged conflict further lowers the likelihood of their occurrence (Ferraro and Andreatta 2014, 338; Robbins et al. 2017, 263). How do peaceful societies maintain balance? As the authors of our textbook observe, they develop bias against violence by appreciating nonaggressive conduct, by establishing interdependence among individuals and groups, and “by engaging in collective behaviours that promote harmony” (Robbins et al. 2017, 263). Furthermore, they prevent conflicts over resources by placing a strong emphasis on sharing and cooperation, with the Inuit providing a notable example of this strategy (Kottak 2022, 118). And finally, foragers minimize violence through ceremonies (Robbins et al. 2017, 262). Maintaining balance, nonetheless, does not equate with successfully managing conflict. What do these societies do to effectively handle disputes? Ethnographic records show that numerous strategies have been developed to manage conflict, with various forms of social control emerging as key tools to achieve this goal (Lavenda and Schulz 2020, 189; Kottak 2002, 118). Political anthropologists define social control as “fields of the social system (beliefs, practices, and institutions) that are most actively involved in the maintenance of any norms and the

Your preview ends here

Eager to read complete document? Join bartleby learn and gain access to the full version

Access to all documents
Unlimited textbook solutions
24/7 expert homework help

regulation of any conflict” (Kottak 2022, 129). Social control acquires many forms. One such form is the internalization of the community’s values and norms. When group members know which behaviours are considered appropriate, they are less likely to become parties to conflicts (Kottak 2022, 129). The same holds true if they respect and adhere to norms and values of their community (Nanda and Warms 2018, 167). Other means of social control include gossip, ridicule, shaming, and avoidance. These methods are particularly effective in small-scale societies where everyone knows each other. Social consequences of ridiculing or shaming, such as reputation damage, are far greater in tight-knit communities. In these communities, people’s survival depends on smooth cooperation with others and access to resources, which are often controlled by powerful group members, compared to highly stratified societies (Ibid 2018, 167; Kottak 2022, 133). Question 1 of 3 Thomas Hobbes was the major thinker who believed that human beings are inherently prone to violence. a. True b. False Correct! Sigmund Freud, a founder of psychoanalysis, articulated his views on the violent instinct of people in his seminal work Civilization and Its Discontents (Sponsel and Gregor 2022, x). Question 2 of 3 Peace should be defined as the absence of war. a. True b. False Correct! Defining peace as the lack of war makes it difficult to identify conditions that can foster the maintenance of peace. Question 3 of 3 Most “traditional” societies reward warriors. a. True b. False Correct! As Thomas Gregor observes, one of the strategies of the Xinguanos, who live in the Xingu basin of the Amazon, is to hold aggressive individuals in contempt. The commitment to the rejection of violence goes so far as refusing recognition to their own warriors who successfully defended their community against attackers from hostile villagers (Robbins et al. 2017, 262). WHAT IS WAR?

Definition In the same way that societies establish methods of controlling their own members, they also devise strategies to manage relationships with other groups, including states, tribes, bands, or clans. One such strategy is warfare (Ferraro and Andreatta 2014, 338). When defining warfare, we must stress differences in scale, size, reasons, duration, methods used, costs, outcomes, and general cultural variability (Ferraro and Andreatta 2014, 338; Sponsel and Gregor 2022, xii; Lavenda and Schulz 2020, 189). Some communities, like the Dani in New Guinea, remain in a constant state of war, yet these conflicts result in few casualties. On the opposite end of the spectrum is Western warfare, which costs billions of dollars, that may involve the use of remotely controlled weapons that can indiscriminately kill thousands of people within minutes or seconds, without any direct contact with the enemy (Ferraro and Andreatta 2014, 338). Conversely, other groups, like the Inuit and Cree in eastern Canada, rely on a very different warfare technology by conducting their fights through shamans who perform magic, and avoid direct interaction with their adversaries (Sutton 2021, 81). Warfare, defined as the authorized and sanctioned use of military force, entails organized conflicts between societies and typically involves violent confrontations on a large scale. In warfare, entire societies mobilize against each other, attempting to eliminate as many members of the opposing society as possible until one side surrenders. It arises when persuasive methods of dispute resolution, such as diplomacy, either do not exist, have failed, or are ignored, leaving physical combat as the only avenue to settle differences (Lavenda and Schulz 2020; Sutton 2021, 81). History Historians, over centuries, have examined war and concluded that while violence existed in pre-history, small-scale warfare dates to the Neolithic era. As argued in Lesson 5, the development of agricultural techniques and the abandonment of a nomadic lifestyle around 10,00 years ago led to a population explosion and the establishment of permanent settlements. This new mode of subsistence was not foolproof, and when coupled with demographic pressures, food was sometimes scarce. People were

more inclined to engage in warfare as a means of securing access to missing resources (Ferraro and Andreatta 2014, 338). The rise of state-societies in the Middle East 5,000 years ago marked the onset of warfare proper (Lavenda and Schulz 2020, 189), as is argued by Brian Ferguson in this video (end at 10:39 mark): “R. Brian Ferguson discusses ‘Violence: An Anthropology of War” part 1 (4:08 minutes). The establishment of large, hierarchically organized states facilitated the development of substantial military organizations. Since the emergence of these early states, there has been a continual rise in the sophistication of military organization and technology. In the last century, we have observed a surge in the global magnitude of warfare and how we wage our wars as is discussed in this video (end at 18:31): “Margaret MacMillan: How War Made Humanity” part 1 (2:11 minutes) Causes Wars are fought for multitude of reasons, ranging from seeking revenge, territorial expansion, and competing over scarce resources, to the desire to subjugate or eliminate specifics groups, as well as achieving strategic or political advantages (Sutton 2021, 81; Robbins et al. 2017, 267). The justifications for wars are diverse, they may involve scapegoating of national, ethnic, racial, or sexual minorities, as well as manipulating people by convincing them that their safety or interests are threatened (Ferraro and Andreatta 2014, 339). Moreover, wars are more likely to break out in societies characterized by unresolved social tensions, especially considerable economic inequality. Instead of addressing the widening gap between the rich and the poor, a new enemy is commonly blamed for this situation. Thus, wars are typically “justified on some moral grounds” (Ferrato and Andeatta 2014, 339; Robbins et al. 2017, 267). Finally, societies defined “by a strong male bias- patrilocal residence, patrilineal descent, polygyny, postmarital sex restrictions on females, male secret societies, and men’s houses” and those with high levels of sexual violence against women, tend to exhibit a higher inclination toward collective violence (Robbins et al. 2017, 267). Learning Activity: Try it Out In this activity, use the knowledge of the various causes of war that you have just acquired and apply it to three examples of conflicts listed below. If you are not a history buff, before revealing which war

Your preview ends here

Eager to read complete document? Join bartleby learn and gain access to the full version

Access to all documents
Unlimited textbook solutions
24/7 expert homework help

corresponds to which reason, first, read brief descriptions of these conflicts and try to match them to at least one reason. 1. Moral objectives 2. Perceived threats 3. Social problems 4. Political motivations Example 1: Crusades The Europeans initiated the Crusades against the Islamic infidels, strongly believing that God was on their side. They perceived the Muslim conquest of the Levant and Egypt as a considerable political threat. (Ferraro and Andreatta 2014, 339) Answer: Moral objectives and perceived threats. Example 2: The Invasion of Poland by Germany in 1939 After Germany’s defeat in the Great War, the nation not only faced humiliation but also significant weakening due to the reparations that the country was obligated to pay. These challenges, coupled with the devastation brought about by the economic crisis of the Great Depression, left German society disillusioned and frustrated. Seizing this opportunity, Adolf Hitler crafted an ideology that instilled a sense of pride and superiority in his compatriots, positioning them against other groups deemed expendable who were later either murdered in the concentration camps or in combat. Thus, Adolf Hitler’s decision to

move his troops into neighboring European countries to acquire more “living room” was rooted in the social problems present in Germany. Furthermore, it was motivated by the country’s growing political ambitions (Ferraro and Andreatta 2014, 339). Answer: Social problems and political motivations. Example 3: The War in Vietnam During the 1960s, the North Vietnamese people were ready to engage in war. They felt that the lasting influence of the French and Americans in the southern part of Vietnam posed a threat to their security. Meanwhile, the Americans believed that Vietnam, and Asia as a whole, faced a threat from the presence of a godless, Communist regime. They feared that the fall of South Vietnam to the Communists would set off a domino effect, eventually posing a threat to the entire free world. Furthermore, they envisioned negative political consequences, should this happen (Ferraro and Andreatta 2014). Answer: Perceived threats and political motivations. The Yanomami The causes of war have intrigued anthropologists. Over the past thirty years, numerous academics have focused on the Yanomami peoples of the Amazon region to answer this question. The Yanomami have

captured anthropologists' attention due to their institutionalized warfare and reputation for fierceness (Ferraro and Andreatta 2014, 338). The Yanomami are horticulturalists who also engage in hunting and gathering. They inhabit widely scattered villages, each consisting of 40-250 people, and are known for frequent engagements in warfare (Kottak 2022, 119). Anthropologist Napoleon Chagnon, who studied this group in the mid-1960s, reported that during a 15-month period, a village of 200 residents was attacked 25 times, resulting in the death of 5% of its population (Robbins et al. 2017, 258, 265). Chagnon argued that the Yanomami’s recurrent raids on other villages were motivated by revenge and the desire to compete for women (Nanda and Warms 2018, 172). Chagnon depicted the Yanomami as pristine people, living a life unchanged since the Stone Age. He suggested that their violent tendencies offered insights not only into the lifestyles of our ancestors but perhaps also into human nature itself. However, his biological and essentialist explanations have been challenged, most notably by Brian Ferguson. Ferguson, in a more compelling argument, linked the “fierceness” of the Yanomami to Western colonial contact, competition for Western goods, and the breakdown of social relations brought about by epidemics and the depletion of game and other food resources (Robbins et al. 2017, 265). The details of Ferguson’s perspective are laid out in this video (end at 6:11 mark): “R. Brian Ferguson discusses ‘Violence: An Anthropology of War” part 2 (1:42 minutes). HEGEMONY AND IDEOLOGY OF WARFARE IN STATES In Lessons 9 and 11, we explored a range of state functions, including infrastructure maintenance, education establishment, law enforcement, defense against external threats, and the development of national traditions to strengthen an imagined community (Kottak 2022, 118; Nanda and Warms 2018, 118). Our attention now turns to the state’s capability to uphold order by employing both physical and social means as strategies to facilitate conflict management. One of the major roles of the state is to settle disputes and create livable conditions for its people. This may sometimes involve engaging in warfare, but it also includes subjugating populations within its borders, often minorities, to safeguard the interests of elites or most of the population. Besides the physical coercive measures discussed in Lesson 11, such as the separation of Indigenous children from parents in the case of Canadian residential schools, states generally develop nonphysical sophisticated strategies to implement social order. These methods help “subordinates [to] comply with domination by

Your preview ends here

Eager to read complete document? Join bartleby learn and gain access to the full version

Access to all documents
Unlimited textbook solutions
24/7 expert homework help

internalizing their rulers’ values and accepting the “naturalness” of domination” (Kottak 2022, 129), leading to what Gramsci calls hegemony . These techniques include overseeing individuals, as well as documenting and tracking their activities, interactions, and beliefs. More importantly, the state constructs “punishable groups of people” who are depicted as the “Other” allegedly threatening the social order and necessitating their containment (Robbins et al. 2017, 267). As argued by two influential French thinkers, Pierre Bourdieu and Michel Foucault, dominating people’s minds is much easier than controlling their bodies. States, however, control the bodies of their citizens and seek to extend that control to their enemies, a goal realized when engaging in warfare. As pointed out by Robbins and colleagues, since the employment of violence does not come to humans naturally, the state constructs elaborate justifications for it (Robbins et al. 2017, 256). These justifications often take the form of ideologies that identify “enemies within” and “enemies without” stigmatizing and dehumanizing them, thereby making it easier to commit acts of violence against them (Sutton 2021, 83; Robbins et al. 2017, 268). To learn about how nationalist ideologies were employed watch these two videos: ● “Margaret MacMillan: How War Made Humanity” part 2 (2:53 minutes) ● “Margaret MacMillan: How War Made Humanity ” part 3 (3:08 minutes) In extreme cases, ideology targeting specific groups, especially if supported by the state-sponsored propaganda, like it was the case with the Nazis, can lead to an ethnocide – “an attempt to destroy the culture of a people” (Robbins et al. 2017, 268) or a genocide – the physical extermination of a society (Sutton 2021, 83). Question 1 of 4 Ideologies:. a. serve the elites b. identify external enemies c. construct internal enemies d. all of the above Question 2 of 4 The treatment of Indigenous peoples in Canada constitutes: a. Ethnocide b. Genocide c. a and b d. none of the above

Question 3 of 4 The term hegemony was introduced by: a. Antonio Gramsci b. Pierre Bourdieu c. Michelle Foucault d. Giorgio Agamben Question 4 of 4 The state employs ideology to: a. persuade citizens to partake in warfare b. rationalize the killing of civilians c. justify killing people, as it is not something that comes easily to most human beings d. discipline its soldiers, instructing them to harm only the soldiers and not the civilians of the enemy population ANTHROPOLOGISTS STUDYING PEACE AND WARFARE Goals Scientists have a crucial role in comprehending the dynamics and logic of peace and war, especially considering the limited effectiveness of trials, treatises, and the United Nations resolutions in achieving peace among all nations (Sponsel and Gregor 2022, x). Anthropologists, given their training, are very well equipped to deepen our understanding of these phenomena. Over the years, they have consistently advocated for recognizing the significance of culture in conflict, conflict resolution and management. Nonetheless, anthropology has often been inclined towards focusing predominantly on the war part of the conflict, overlooking the fact that, as highlighted by the authors of our textbook, peace is the opposite side of the coin in conflict resolution (Robbins, Cummings, and McGarry 2017, 255; Sponsel and Gregor 2022, xv).

The task of anthropologists is not only to understand war, but to comprehend what peace is and how it is sustained across different cultures and contexts (Robbins et al. 2017, 257). Other goals include identifying factors that influence or favor specific forms of conflict resolution in varying circumstances (Robbins et al. 2017, 256). Furthermore, anthropologists aim to determine if there are noteworthy social, economic, or political differences between violent and peaceful societies and how the latter ones create a bias against violence. To repeat after Robbins and colleagues, anthropology can be applied to conflict resolution education in at least three ways: 1. Subject matter expertise - in particular, ethnographic topics about a specific ethnic group. 2. Methodology - including methods of ethnographic inquiry such as participant observation, interviews, and life-stories. 3. Reflexive sensitivity to practitioners’ own cultural beliefs and biases. (Robbins et al. 2017, 280) In short, anthropologists can contribute to understanding various forms of conflict resolution and lending their expertise to peacebuilding (Robbins et al. 2017, 257). Peacebuilding, a term used in the international arena and in relation to broad-based approaches to post- conflict reconstruction, is linked to conflict transformation. Peacebuilding could be summarized as a more extensive approach to armed conflict than peacemaking or diplomacy. It refers to broad-based efforts to attain sustainable, positive peace. Peacebuilding can encompass everything from ‘tract two’ (or “citizen”) diplomacy, to grassroots dialogue group, demobilization, disarmament and reintegration programs for former combatants, to development and restorative justice programs aimed at leveling social inequalities, addressing trauma and anger, and exploring the redress for victims (Davidheiser 2007, 11). Pitfalls of Studying Warfare Anthropologists understand that violence and peace are culturally meaningful and situated processes. They undergo rigorous training to comprehend each issue on its own terms and position it within a broader, cross-cultural perspective. For this reason, the insights of anthropologists are invaluable, but they may require conducting fieldwork in a warzone (Robbins et al. 2017, 280). How safe and scientifically

Your preview ends here

Eager to read complete document? Join bartleby learn and gain access to the full version

Access to all documents
Unlimited textbook solutions
24/7 expert homework help

sound is this approach? By studying the perspective of one party in the conflict, are anthropologists inadvertently taking sides? What if their findings are used against their will, manipulated to favour one side? (Robbins et al. 2017, 274). What about the code of ethics, securing informed consent and ensuring the safety of participants (Balzani and Besnier 2021, 86)? To echo Robbins and colleagues, conducting fieldwork in warzones is very dangerous. The authors of our textbook list four deaths of fellow anthropologists who died on the job. Ruth First, an anti-apartheid activist, was killed by a mailbomb in her office in Mozambique in 1982. Two years later, the Melanesian anthropologist, Arnold Ap was tortured and killed by the Indonesian army. In 1989, members of a pro-apartheid death-squad fatally shot South African anthropologist David Wester. The following year, Guatemalan anthropologist Myrna Mack was stabbed to death by a soldier, ostensibly for her work with Mayan refugees (Robbins et al. 2017, 274). In addition to facing death, anthropologists staying in war zones and experiencing the traumas that the local population is enduring can suffer from an array of psychological symptoms associated with Post-Traumatic Stress Disorder (PTSD). Working in such extreme conditions poses a great challenge and a series of rules were developed to protect anthropologists and their informants (Robbins et al. 2017, 274). In Lesson 3, we discussed the importance of researchers familiarizing themselves with and following the ethical guidelines of anthropological associations. Furthermore, we also touched upon the development of these guidelines in the aftermath of a series of scandals in the United States. It became evident that the Pentagon hired anthropologists to assist the US army in effectively containing and managing revolutions in the countries of Latin America and Asia. Years have passed since then, but the military continues to hire anthropologists (Balzani and Besnier 2021, 86). Learning Activity: Take a Guess! In this learning activity, you are asked to match governmental projects in which anthropologists worked to help secure the interests of their country. You are not expected to know the correct answers. Piecing information that you have learned in this course with other information that you might have acquired earlier will help you retain information more easily. The act of revealing correct answers and comparing them with your guesses will help you remember this material better. Match these countries with the examples of government projects listed below.

1. Iraq and Afghanistan 2. Chile 3. Vietnam Example 1: Project Camelot Answer: Chile. During the peak of the Cold War in 1964–65, the U.S. military financed Project Camelot, a covert initiative that enlisted anthropologists and other social scientists specializing in Latin America. The goal was to identify factors predicting social unrest and potential political opposition to right-wing regimes. When it was exposed, Project Camelot became a significant catalyst for the professional organisations to develop codes of ethics (Balzani and Besnier 2021, 86). Example 2: Human Terrain System Answer:

Iraq and Afghanistan. Between 2007 and 2014, the U.S. military’s Human Terrain System (HTS) hired anthropologists to collect information in Iraq and Afghanistan. The purpose of HTS, as portrayed by the U.S. government, was to win the 'hearts and minds' of the occupied populations, with hope of reducing the number of military altercations. However, obtaining ethnographic data about people on the opposing side of a conflict runs counter to fundamental ethical principles. This is because such information serves the interests of an invading power and could potentially be used to identify individuals as targets of violence (Balzani and Besnier 2021, 86; Robbins et al. 2017, 276). Example 3: Cords Program Answer: Vietnam. Like the Human Terrain System, CORDS aimed to acquire cultural knowledge for the purpose of winning "hearts and minds." Military personnel, using information from social scientists, exploited Vietnamese superstitions and religious beliefs to frighten and terrorize civilians. Unfortunately, when CORDS data were handed over to the South Vietnamese government, they were weaponized to identify and target political opponents and dissidents. (Robbins et al. 2017, 276). FROM GENOCIDE TOWARDS CONFLICT RESOLUTION

Your preview ends here

Eager to read complete document? Join bartleby learn and gain access to the full version

Access to all documents
Unlimited textbook solutions
24/7 expert homework help

While Canada currently holds international reputation as a peacekeeper, it may be inconvenient to recall that in the past, Canadians have committed acts of violence on a massive scale, constituting to genocide. Nevertheless, the act of remembering, documenting, bearing witness and testifying serves as powerful tools against the repetition of atrocities experienced by Indigenous survivors. In this section, we will explore the significance of educating the country’s citizens about Canada’s dark history, highlighting the pivotal role of the Truth and Reconciliation Commission in reaching this goal. Finally, we will discuss how anthropologists can contribute to the effort of working towards conflict resolution. UN-Based Convention on Genocide (1948) Under the 1948 UN-based convention, genocide is recognized in five distinct situations. This definition is met when (Fleras 2016): 1. Members of a group are slaughtered with the intent of bringing about their disappearance as a people. 2. Conditions are created that foster the dispersal of the group by destroying the essential foundations of community life (in the process pushing remnants of the population to an edge from which recovery is difficult). 3. Intense psychological abuse or physical discomfort is inflicted, culminating in the dissolution of the group. 4. Children are transferred from one group to another, thus bringing about the demise of the culture; and 5. Births are prevented through involuntary sterilization, birth control, or abortion. As we will explore shortly, Canadian forefathers are indeed responsible for such actions. Although there have been calls for the acknowledgment of these actions as acts of genocide (Fontaine and Farber 2013), the identification and prosecution of genocide can be challenging due to its broad definition, hindering humanitarian intervention. For instance, the forced removal of Indigenous children from their homes and their relocation into residential schools in Canada would meet the criteria outlined in point #4.

“Where Are the Children? Healing the Legacy of Residential Schools” The Legacy of Hope Foundation (LHF) is a charitable national Indigenous organization dedicated to educating and raising awareness about the enduring impact of Residential Schools, aiming to contribute to the healing of survivors. The following information comes from the website of the Legacy of Hope Foundation and their educational resources “Where Are the Children? Healing the Legacy of Residential Schools” and describes the establishment and eventual closure of these schools. The Residential School System had the purpose of educating, assimilating, and integrating Indigenous peoples into European-Canadian society. Essentially, it functioned as a system aimed at eradicating Indigenous culture in children. The earliest example was the Mohawk Indian Residential School, established in 1831 in Brantford, Ontario. By the early 1930s, Canada had 80 residential schools with over 17,000 enrolled students. In 1920, Duncan Campbell Scott, the official overseeing Canada’s Indian Policy, amended the Indian Act, making attendance at residential schools compulsory for all Indigenous children aged seven to fifteen. The last federally administered residential school closed in 1996. According to the Legacy for Hope Foundation, the most effective methods to encourage long-term reconciliation and healing involve raising awareness and fostering education on this subject. Truth and Reconciliation Commission (TRC) An important step in the healing process in Canada has been the establishment of the Truth and Reconciliation Commission (TRC). This commission aims to offer a comprehensive account of the human

rights abuses suffered by Indigenous peoples. “The TRC spent 6 years travelling to all parts of Canada and heard from more than 6,500 witnesses. The TRC also hosted 7 national events across Canada to engage the Canadian public, educate people about the history and legacy of the residential school system, and share and honour the experiences of former students and their families” (Crown-Indigenous Relations and Northern Affairs September 29, 2022). The TRC aims to identify patterns and chains of command, seeking to understand the intentional and systematic nature of human rights abuses. To repeat after Robbins and colleagues, an anthropological education helps to achieve these goals well, as anthropologists being specialists in ethnic groups or cultural practices are well-prepared to provide deep detailed knowledge and holistic insights. Furthermore, their reliance on ethnographic methods has the potential to foster self-reflection in cases of conflict resolution. As mentioned earlier, anthropologists understand how both peaceful and violent actions are culturally embedded and what meanings they carry. They are tasked with "understanding each problem on its own terms and situating it within a wider, cross-cultural perspective" (Robbins, Cummings, and McGarry 2017, p. 280). Anthropologists’ expertise is therefore essential if we are serious about conflict resolution.

Your preview ends here

Eager to read complete document? Join bartleby learn and gain access to the full version

Access to all documents
Unlimited textbook solutions
24/7 expert homework help

AN100 last quiz notes

Related Documents