This kind of (BUTTERFLIES) is why Cultural Anthropology is (Happy).
EDITORS NOTE: It has been suggested that the original post was somewhat over the top, poorly thought-out, generally missed the point and could use some editing. Therefore we have assembled a committee consisting of a group of people from a St. Petersburg, Florida shopping mall to red-line this post and edit it in a way they feel is more balanced and considerate. These guest editors where selected by asking passers-by to rate a series of “Ziggy” and “Dennis the Menace” comic strips on a scale from “0″ (somewhat morally questionable) to “5″ (The authors of such foul filthy material should be burned at the stake). A random sample from all those that graded the comics at “3″ or above were asked to edit the post.
Ok, fine here is the link http://anthrojustpeace.blogspot.com/ . Here is the gist of it. A band of “Cultural Anthropologists” have gotten together to protest think deeply about a Canadian program called “Project Hero.” The program is pretty simple: If you are a member of the Canadian Military and you get whacked butterflies in combat, your kids have the opportunity to go to college for free.
Yep, that’s pretty much it. The reason for “Anthropologists For Justice and Peace” to exist is to protest that protect the children of people that are killed given butterflies in the service of their country get to go to college for free.
My god! Golly! I cannot praise the “Anthropologists For Justice and Peace” too highly. Indeed, you have taken a mighty and courageous stand for humanity! I cannot even start to imagine the massive hardships this program is going to impinge have (guest editor note: we don’t know what “impinge” means, but it sounds dirty to us.) on you. You may even ( and I shudder to even consider the idea) have one of these children of evil people in one of your classes! To quote the groups website “Project Hero is not about aid to the children of deceased soldiers, as their needs are already being met. Rather it is a political effort to justify Canadian participation in the war in Afghanistan and glorify militarism on our campuses.” Really? REALLY? You dimwitted troglodytes. Perhaps you have not thought through how this appears to the casual reader. Yes, indeed you have uncovered the BIG PLAN. Get the kids of KIA South Korean import car driving parents into school so they can “glorify militarism on our campuses.” Honestly, I mean… I just keep struggling in my writing of this post between my utter disbelief that your silly protest exists and the frankly massive fodder it make for heaping and well-deserved abuse on your organization.
Here is a picture of a butterfly, isn’t is pretty?
Ooooh, Pretty!
Yes, all manner of children that have lost a parent as part of the great war machine at the food court of the shopping mall will be invading enrolling in your classes, infecting learning side by side with the children of good and moral people that were not in the military.
Look. Here is the deal: You are a bunch of arrogant deep thinking and bigoted assholes people. Can I make this more plain? You and those like Gusterson, Gonzalez, Price and Forte are bigots plain and simple. Present the kind of well-researched and rigorously analyzed views that follow other such intellectual giants as Rush Limbaugh, Bill Riley, Glenn Beck and Joseph McCarthy. Whatever field you are in are known for. Take most of the statements you make about the military and insert an ethnicity or gender for words like military or solider or other related references and it reads a hell of a lot like bigotry. “Anthropologists For Justice and Peace” and “Network of Concerned Anthropologists” you are ugly bigots plain and simple. But instead of burning crosses you write articles and books and instead of the white robes of the klan, you hide in the black robes of academia. Have you ever seen a Panda, wow are they SUPER-CUTE! We love Pandas!
A panda cub! Awwwwwww....
So, “Anthropologists For Justice and Peace” stand tall and proud as your bigitory of the military is to be visited on to the children of the military. Yes, after the death of a parent getting a bunch of flowers, they need you shitting patting them on the head as well. What a fine legacy you noble anthropologists bring.
STUDENTS: ”Anthropologists For Justice and Peace” has nothing to do with cultural anthropology. Zero, nothing nana. Wheee, Pop Rocks, we love Pop Rocks. OK? A long time ago Cultural Anthropology wais a growing an respected science… SCIENCE group of opinions. Sadly its become the laughing stock of the social sciences. Oh, The other anthro fields: Archaeology, bio anthropology, Linguistic anthropology are still part of science and generally don’t hang with the cultural crowd out of embarrassment. can get stuffed because they are not nearly as cool at the Cultural Anthropologists.
And to paraphrase the first line of the “Anthropologists For Justice and Peace” “Manifesto” (really, cant it just be called in introduction? Or in the FAQ or something? What is this 1930 Italy?) We don’t understand this, what is a “manifesto?”
“We recognize and support the right of people everywhere to lives lived with self-determination, dignity, freedom, justice, and peace.” I would modify this to include “Unless we disagree with you politically” Any time I see crap proverbs like this I am happy I was allowed to read “The Golden Book Of Fairy Tales” at an early age.
Don’t get me wrong: I totally defend the rights of all manner of ignorant bigots to publish their opinions, all people should be allowed to do so without restriction. Otherwise, how else can we identify the total loons? Bless this world of freedoms!
Mark I understand that you’re pissed off, and I agree that it’s a wrong-headed and even bigoted organization.
I would dispute your claim that anthropology is a “laughingstock” among the social sciences, just because we have our fair share of assholes in the profession.
I’m aware of the respect that lay-people and academics have for anthropology at least in part because now I’m working in a library, among non-anthropologists, and the enthusiasm for my discipline is gratifying, and I have to say, a little surprising. The tendency towards self-loathing and insecurity that academic isolation can breed is not a healthy thing–more of us should get out among non-anthro colleagues and see ourselves (holistically) from the outside looking in, once in a while.
If anthropology as a discipline were “doomed,” we’d be in a very different place. No one would be hiring us in the private sector, no one would want us on campus. That hasn’t happened yet.
Idiots are everywhere. Surround yourself with people who are not idiots–it’s as good a defense as any.
Wow! Horseshit indeed.
My god, why, and I’ve been asking this for a while, why do we allow a small radical fringe to hijack the discipline like that. They toss around the brand name like it’s a toy, and we say nothing. The AAA is supposed to represent all of us, yet they refuse to give the majority a voice in these matters.
If it’s Canada it’s probably the same people that run Zero Anthropology, who also state that Islamic terrors are completely justified in killing anyone, because they are simply fighting Western Imperialism. Even for the left that’s radical.
I agree with that 1st comment though. I don’t think we are doomed in any way. I just think that most people still don’t know who we are or what we do, and I want their first impression to be a good one.
I find it more than a little ironic that someing writing on a website called ethnography.com is so disparaging of cultural anthropology in general. I find myself vehemently disagreeing with the group you’ve linked to — downright loathing what they have to say, in fact — but to put all cultural anthropologists at the same level or in the same category as them is disingenuous. And to dismiss an entire subfield because of a few nutcases is to dismiss a very valid science (yes, science) that still has a lot to teach us about the nature of human culture. Clearly, what cultural anthrologists need to do is do everything they can to distance themselves from this sort of rabid behavior.
@N. Morris – I think you miss the point entirely.
The author’s position was that because of this group, Cultural Anthropologists are losing their credibility. He is in fact NOT disparaging of the field – rather, wanting it to be more respected.
Mark Dawson has evidently flipped his lid and spouts away at a non-issue. Would you employ a consultant who rails like this? Even the military will now surely steer clear of him! Or perhaps this is an invitation of sorts…
Donna, Rick, Morris, Selma. You are indeed correct in your POV. Cultural Anthropology as a discipline is a proven science, and the skills one gains in it’s study can provide insights to a host of disciplines and professions.
However, the Cultural Anth that is espoused by a very vocal minority is political ideology, a belief system and little to do with science and something I want to be well distanced from. And it is truly a minority. The “Network of Concerned Anthropologists” (and I am still unaware who they are concerned for) has considerable fewer than 1,000 that have “signed” their document. Even if we generously assume that every person that has signed is a AAA member, it is still less the 10% of total membership. Hardly a mandate.
As Slema says, I am not dismissing the field but stating the field, as we know it, is being reduced to an ideology and in that sense is doomed. I want to know when those at the forefront of training the next generation of social scientists, those teaching in colleges and universities are going to re-assert control of the field, because if you cant, the idea-loges will be the future.
Mark, I’m with you. I’ve said the same thing for a years. Every time someone tells me the way I’m supposed to think, feel, or espouse politically because of what I majored in at school, I look it a little.
I had someone give me shit recently, because I wouldn’t join them at that big National rally they had a couple of days ago. I told him that I didn’t think it was right to protest for open borders for what is essentially one sub-population of people, let alone protest for unregulated immigration at all. He treated me like I was a traitor to the discipline.
First of all, I can respect the fact that you have some serious disagreements here. This is absolutely a contentious and heated issue–so I can understand some of your reactions.
That said, I do disagree with some of your assertions here.
“Look. Here is the deal: You are a bunch of arrogant and bigoted assholes. Can I make this more plain? You and those like Gusterson, Gonzalez, Price and Forte are bigots plain and simple. Take most of the statements you make about the military and insert an ethnicity or gender for words like military or solider or other related references and it reads a hell of a lot like bigotry.”
Well, you’re certainly entitled to your opinion. Yes, a lot of the work of Gusterson, Price, and others is pretty critical of US foreign policy and the military. So what? Does this make this work bigoted? Or do they just happen to disagree with YOUR political views? Should anthropologists avoid taking a critical stance when it comes to US foreign policy? Should they just stand aside and leave those issues to the political scientists and other “experts”?
Do you see cultural anthropology as something that should be apolitical? If so, why?
“A long time ago Cultural Anthropology was a growing an respected science… SCIENCE. Sadly its become the laughing stock of the social sciences. Oh, The other anthro fields: Archaeology, bio anthropology, Linguistic anthropology are still part of science and generally don’t hang with the cultural crowd out of embarrassment.”
With all due respect, this statement is pure nonsense. You are completely dismissive of a pretty massive field of study. Are you saying that cultural anthropology has NOTHING to contribute? Look, I can understand the fact that you’re all pissed off, but what’s the point of hauling off and making unfounded claims like this?
If you’re so upset about the one-sided views of these other anthropologists, is this YOUR way of showing us all “how things should be done”? To me, your post just looks like another polemic rant with different political sensibilities and opinions. That’s fine and all, but it’s one of those pot and kettle issues.
“I want to know when those at the forefront of training the next generation of social scientists, those teaching in colleges and universities are going to re-assert control of the field, because if you cant, the idea-loges will be the future.”
How do you propose we go about doing this? How should the discipline be controlled, as you say? Should we disallow political thought, choice, and dissent? Should all cultural anthropologists act and think alike, according to some set of rules? Is there ONE WAY of doing cultural anthropology that you deem correct? Is there only one objective way of approaching culture, history, politics, religion, development, health, and every other complex issue that anthropologists study? How do you propose we go about regulating the entire discipline so that it fits within your conceptions of what the field “should be”? How is this LESS ideological?
Well, that’s an interesting response.
Satire is the highest form of humor in my opinion. Good show.
“Should anthropologists avoid taking a critical stance when it comes to US foreign policy? Should they just stand aside and leave those issues to the political scientists and other “experts”?”
I apologize if I’m out of place, but I’ll take a respectful crack at this, because I’ve thought a lot about it.
I agree that we should never suppress our political views, but we should not forget that they are our views. Noam Chomsky is famous for being both a linguist and an anarchist, but we doesn’t say that being a linguist means that a person should be an anarchist. Do you see the distinction?
Another view would be the fact that these radical critiques rarely, if ever, us a holistic anth. lens in their analysis. Howard Zinn, another anarchist, was a famous, and respected historian that wrote great critiques of the current system, but he did it using all of the same tools of history that his peers did.
The critiques from these lazy academics are based on such black and white thinking, that no anthropologist from the 20th century on could confuse it with something that came from our discipline. These are personal opinions, and they happen to be anths., but they equate the discipline with personal views.
If there was a petition called the “concerned economists for sane financial regulation” then it would fit, no? But, we’re not economists, we take the long view of things, at least we’re supposed to.
I’ve read great critiques using an anth. lens, but it’s not this. Even some of those guys write decent academic work which is not reflected at all in their personal views. They suffer from serious domain dependency.
Mark, nice pivot. From rant to satire, all in two days, and using the strength of web-based technology. Both Ryan and Rick are right in their analysis.
P.S. But Anna has a good point to make, too.
Yea… kind of. It was funnier in my head. I give it a “c.”
The idea that these people are bigots (because if you replace the word “military” in their position with the name of a racial or ethnic group then they would be obviously racist) is absurd.
I am a cultural anthropology student and would love to hear an intelligent and thoughtful critique of AFPJ. Such a critique, I think, would directly deal with the claims made by the AFPJ, especially the idea that “Project Hero” does not provide additional benefits to the children of deceased soldiers but is rather a “political effort to justify Canadian participation in the war in Afghanistan and glorify militarism on our campuses”.
IMHO, your rant was uninformative (and frankly ridiculous) and “satire” largely unfunny. As things stand I can only assume that your anger at this group is based on undisclosed ideological or personal considerations. As I said, however, I would be eager to read a more thoughtful critique.
Rick,
“Satire is the highest form of humor in my opinion. Good show.”
Indeed, satire can be both humorous and extremely poignant. But this post is a long way from HL Mencken or Mark Twain, IMO.
“I agree that we should never suppress our political views, but we should not forget that they are our views. Noam Chomsky is famous for being both a linguist and an anarchist, but we doesn’t say that being a linguist means that a person should be an anarchist. Do you see the distinction?”
Yes, I absolutely see the distinction. I am definitely NOT arguing that any ONE particular view should be placed above all the rest. Also, I am not arguing that “being an anthropologist” requires adhering to a particular set of political positions. That’s the last thing that I’m arguing for. At the same time, there has to be room for different views here. Critiques of US foreign policy are hardly inherently “bigoted.”
“The critiques from these lazy academics are based on such black and white thinking, that no anthropologist from the 20th century on could confuse it with something that came from our discipline. These are personal opinions, and they happen to be anths., but they equate the discipline with personal views.”
Who are you talking about? Gusterson and Price? Or Forte? First of all, while I don’t want to put all of these people into one big camp, a lot of the work that I have read is hardly as black and white as you argue. Some of it is of course more polemic than others. But I find much of the work of people like Gonzales, Gusterson, Besteman, Lutz (and others) to be pretty worthwhile and relevant.
Second, I would argue that personal views and positions often show up in the kinds of work that all anthropologists do–whether they admit it or not. The discipline is a conglomeration of A TON of “personal views” and opinions. Anthropology is not any one thing; it’s a collection of practices and ideas. I don’t see a problem with this, even if some camps disagree with others.
“If there was a petition called the “concerned economists for sane financial regulation” then it would fit, no? But, we’re not economists, we take the long view of things, at least we’re supposed to.”
What does “taking the long view” mean? Having no conclusions about political issues? Taking a value-neutral stance on all things, including war and violence? Standing aside “objectively” as history goes on its merry way? To me, feigned objectivity is just as political an anything else.
I think that the holistic perspective is imperative and extremely valuable, and I also think that coming to some conclusions–and maybe even actually asserting a position on some things–is a good thing. Of course, there will always be debate about these conclusions, but that’s part of the process. This isn’t about absolute knowledge or, god forbid, all encompassing politics. This is about taking a holistic, grounded, yet critical view of contemporary issues.
“I’ve read great critiques using an anth. lens, but it’s not this. Even some of those guys write decent academic work which is not reflected at all in their personal views. They suffer from serious domain dependency.”
This is not my favorite critique of all time, by any means. I would have approached this a little differently for a few reasons. At the same time, I think that there is more to this issue than Mark’s original post lets on. There is something to talk about here, even if people disagree. States DO politicize these sorts of things, and I would not put it past the Canadian State to be doing so. However, the key is finding ways to critique the state without putting the students themselves in the middle of this. Overall, I think that this whole topic could be approached a little more comprehensively from all sides involved. Sorry for the long-winded reply.
jafalconf:
If nothing else, Mark’s personal ideological biases are pretty clearly disclosed in this and other posts on ethnography.com He was a member of the US Army’s Human Terrain System for about nine months. For what it is worth, he took a parting whack at them, too. It is on this web-site.
Mark is also a former fire eater and stilt walker at Renaissance Faires. He also sings and plays music, though I’m not sure how well. You already have your opinion about his talent for satire and rants, so I’m not sure about what other undisclosed ideological or personal considerations you might need.
Tony
By the way Rick, thanks for your reply and thanks for keeping things at a respectful level. I definitely appreciate that.
OK, I didn’t realize that, wouldn’t have bothered commenting if I had.
jafaclconf: Still your interest in hearing about a more balanced critique is fair enough. Mark will not get the last word on this!
“At the same time, there has to be room for different views here. Critiques of US foreign policy are hardly inherently “bigoted.””
Few could disagree with that. I’m a soldier, and I was force to go to the first gulf war and the whole time I didn’t get it. I mean my news came from CNN and AFN armed forces network, living in Japan on 9/11 and my world went to shit. I don’t like to talk about it, but I can tell you it never made sense to me. I never understood the connection and that was me in Japan with an hour of CNN and AFN daily. Even with that news I realized that people over here with a lot more news, heared what they wanted to hear. I quess I’m a little cynical at this point, but I’m not going to make an automatic assumption of someone criticizing foreign policy of the US. Been there, lot to criticize.
That being said, my mind still works, and I’m able to use it, and it tends to understand the grey in the world. It also tends to change with the input of new data.
When the HTS came out I was skeptical, then they put in ethics guards, and I was cool. Thought about joining up. Now, from what’s going on with it now, they’ve gutted it, I’m against it fully now.
That is why I am not bigoted. A bigot is a person who holds a negative view of a group, or whatever, regardless of the facts.
I’m tired I’ll get the rest later. I think we agree more than we disagree here.
Mark, I am just loving bot your original and follow up posts!! Thanks for the best laugh I’ve had in a while….I’m wiping the tears of laughter away as I right this. Needless to say, I fully understand you blowing a gasket (and empathize….booooy do I). Anyway, I will follow your career with great interest — onward and upward!
Meant to say earlier that I really wouldn’t agonize too much more about “AJP” — I really do believe these guys have sadly misjudged the Canadian public if they think this kind of posturing is going to get them anywhere. I see that there are links being forged between all the like-minded (NCA, et al), but it will all boil down to the blind patting the blind on the back (to mix metaphors); a network of people making themselves feel significant, but that’s about it.
“At the same time, I think that there is more to this issue than Mark’s original post lets on. There is something to talk about here, even if people disagree. States DO politicize these sorts of things, and I would not put it past the Canadian State to be doing so.”
I agree. I know as a soldier it really bothered me the way me and others were used as political symbols in order to gain power. We had no say in where we were sent or what war we fight, but the people that sent us would use the fact that they sent us to war as a reason to not criticize the war! There is a conversion about many things to be had, but I’m afraid we as humans have learned too well how to manipulate each other. As social scientists we have a hand in that.
It’s just hard not to take that kind of thing personally. I mean those poor kids lost a parent, and others are going use them for some cause? It’s not as bad as when people go to military funerals and say god kill them because people are gay.
Rick,
“That being said, my mind still works, and I’m able to use it, and it tends to understand the grey in the world. It also tends to change with the input of new data.”
Agreed. Once we all start missing the shades of gray and avoiding new information, we’re all in deep shit. We have to be open to new ways of looking at things–but that does not mean that we just have to change our minds all the time. It means we have to keep looking at things critically.
“When the HTS came out I was skeptical, then they put in ethics guards, and I was cool. Thought about joining up. Now, from what’s going on with it now, they’ve gutted it, I’m against it fully now. That is why I am not bigoted. A bigot is a person who holds a negative view of a group, or whatever, regardless of the facts.”
Ya, that’s a decent definition of a bigot. But that does not mean that someone has to change their position on something in order to avoid being labeled as such–and that’s the mistake that Mark makes here. He claims that all of these “lazy academics” are bigots, but he forgets that many of them have put a lot of time into finding out more about HTS. A lot of time and effort. It’s not as if they are just sitting around repeating the same stories from five years ago. Dawson calls them “bigots” when he means to say that he disagrees with them politically. Big difference. And considering the fact that he is claiming to speak in defense of cultural anthropology–his words have come across pretty baseless and shallow.
“I agree. I know as a soldier it really bothered me the way me and others were used as political symbols in order to gain power. We had no say in where we were sent or what war we fight, but the people that sent us would use the fact that they sent us to war as a reason to not criticize the war!”
Exactly. I can’t even imagine what it was like to experience, since I was never in the military. But coming from southern California and living near Camp Pendleton for most of my life I got to know a lot of people from the base. So that’s where I got some different views of soldiers’ experiences. Also, since I started off in archaeology, I happened to work with a LOT of ex-military, and many of them were pretty vocal about their experiences.
Everyone gets politicized, and it becomes difficult to criticize the war because nobody wants to be seen as being “against the troops.” Meanwhile, more young people (like the people from the base in socal that I knew) keep getting shipped off to fight in these stupid wars. There’s the political catch-22.
Isn’t that part of the point that Forte is talking about? If you agree with the fact that soldiers (and their families) get used as political symbols, I don’t understand how you found this post by Dawson even remotely worthwhile. I don’t get it. The whole Project Hero sounds like a case where the Canadian govt is politicizing these kids in order to drum up support for the war effort that caused the issue in the first place–the loss of the parents. So should the university be used as a place to keep promoting the very war that led to the deaths of these kids’ parents?
I think that Mark completely missed the point here, and he hauled off and overreacted without thinking too much. Definitely not the kind of “anthropological” analysis that I find useful.
“It’s just hard not to take that kind of thing personally. I mean those poor kids lost a parent, and others are going use them for some cause?”
Ya, I can understand, because what these kids are going through is horrible–and then to have the whole thing turn into some political issue, well, that makes it worse. But I am a little unclear about something. So are you saying that AJP is using them for a cause, or the Canadian govt/military? I see it as the latter, since the govt is pushing the very war effort that is leading to the loss of lives, and then using the kids as banners for supporting that war effort with this Project Hero–all so more parents can travel to the middle east and lose their lives in a suspect war.
WOW–That is a mouthful…! Anyway, true anthropology (and ethnography), at least in my opinion, should be clear and concise—not something intended to “stir the pot” in this type of “ranting! I do understand the point of using rhetorical devices here, but I agree that this one is a bit over the top. As for the petition in question, it is a valid point that by using the term “Hero” and the fact that there is already a somewhat sufficient program in place to support the survivors, exposes blatantly the hypocrisy and hegemonic underpinnings of this program. My basis for opposing such a program is not one that denies the “heroism” of any individual that gave his or her life in the name of a cause they “believe in” –it is not their fault policy makers engage in unjust conflicts, though they may support such policies. My concern is that these issues get so wrapped up in “semiotic veils of smoke” that we begin to see the individual solders as the villains and not the source of the rhetoric, and actual engagement on the ground that stems from the policy makers themselves!
Ryan and Rick.. I am certainly enjoying your conversation, thank you. I try to not respond to comments to my posts (I am not successful, but I try), I want to let people take them for what they are – for better or for worse – and let the chips fall. But I am enjoying your interaction.
Do people really need to question if the post is “Over the top?” I am not sure anyone could read it and NOT see it as an over the top rant. I didn’t have an out-of-body-experience while writing it and them come back and say “Whoa, who wrote this?” I gotta say, you can hold your monitor at pretty much any angle you like, but “over the top really pissed off rant” would certainly be about the only viable description. But comparing it to Analysis? Ryan, really…? Come on, just between us, no one else is listening: you seriously didn’t read that as analysis did you? Of course not. You are a rational individual, you know what an analytic paper on a topic looks like so I can’t see you seriously reading it as an “anthropological analysis.” You and Rick are having a well reasoned and excellent back and forth, I don’t buy that you (or anyone) would see anything I blog about as analysis.
When I started the blog, and was run by a single individual, it was going to be a hodge-podge of things, including rants. Comparing my post to anthropological analysis is like comparing WWE professional westing to the Olympics. One of them has to do with sports, the other has to do with garnering attention and hits. Face it, Me Forte and the others in this queasy little opera are all the characters in the WWE version of well, it’s not anthropology… i don’t know what it is.
I really don’t think much about people’s personal politics and I try to avoid conversations about them. I simply don’t think anthropology, as a science, should be confused with activism. When I am saying bigots, I am not at all talking about someone’s position to US policy, I don’t care about that really. I am talking about people that have a knee-jerk and visceral hatred of people in the military because of what the military represents to them. When someone compares military people to stromtroopers and thugs and generally denigrate’s individual’s because of their association with the military (and yes, the military is there to act on policy). That screams bigot to me.
Here are a couple of non-blog world (you know, the real world) examples to make the point: A friend of mine, a soldier, decided to go back to grad school and she was considering cultural anthropology. When she did her informational interview at one major university, she was told explicitly that some faculty where going to have a problem with her in their classes just because she is a soldier in the reserves. They in fact suggested that cultural anthropology would not be a good fit for that reason. No one had seen her grades, no application had been sent in, it was not a review of her qualifications or statement of purpose. She was dissuaded from cultural anthropology strictly because of her military connection. This same person was at a small dinner that included an anthropologist. People went around talking introducing themselves and their backgrounds, the anthropologist suddenly said that she was not comfortable being at the table because this person is a solider. How can this not strike you as bigotry?
While I have always felt people in the military get a pretty bum deal for the sacrifices they make. My time in the HTS has only enhanced that feeling and my very direct experience working with soldiers, has made me even less patient with this sort of bigotry. So, yea it gets me pretty pissed off.
I fully recognize that this vocal minority does not speak for cultural anthropology at all. All of my interactions with cultural anthropologists about HTS and the Military have been polite, respectful, funny, enjoyable, and most importantly: Open to wanting to learn more without trying to slap a political bias on it.
Where that 99% of people in this conversation? Why haven’t they popped up and screamed “Dawson, Forte, Price: you have all had enough time in the sandbox, get the hell out of the way so the adults can keep working.” Most cultural anthropologists that I have met just want to see students become better thinkers, better scholars (if that is that career path they want), capable of taking a holistic view of a topic from all sides. They don’t care about the politics of their students.
There are sometime’s points where people just simply are not going to bridge that difference though. I advocate that people with training in cultural anthropology can and should be applying their skills in a very wide range of arenas from universities to corporations to non-profits and including the military and intelligence communities and not have to worry about passing a political litmus test. But I am an applied person to my core, that’s what I like. I care less about people having the title of “cultural anthropologist” as I do about bring those theories and methods to a wide variety of places and seeing more jobs created for people with training in the field.
In many ways, my opinions are moot. As I have taken a completely different career path outside of cultural anthropology as this point. I may come back to Design Anthropology as some people, but I am trying something new. So, you can say that as a newly-minted non-anthropologist I don’t really have a worthwhile opinion anymore.
As always, the conversation I am watching people have is more important than the outcome of who gets to claim the last word and yell “See, I’m in the right and you are in the wrong!”
“Isn’t that part of the point that Forte is talking about? If you agree with the fact that soldiers (and their families) get used as political symbols, I don’t understand how you found this post by Dawson even remotely worthwhile. I don’t get it. The whole Project Hero sounds like a case where the Canadian govt is politicizing these kids in order to drum up support for the war effort that caused the issue in the first place–the loss of the parents.”
Wow, these blogs are making it too easy for me to avoid work.
You had me until the part quoted above. I don’t know about Canada’s way of doing things, but I’m assuming they aren’t as pro-military and vocal about the military as the US is. As far as I know, unless you’re in the military, or a kid of a former military person then these programs are pretty well unknown. They are kind of assumed. Students may come across them when searching for scholarships, but most of the time a university will have a special office to handle veterans and children of veterans, and give them the info., because it isn’t really advertised. Is it different in Canada?
So, I don’t see how it is some propaganda tool used by the state, and I know something about propaganda, because I did counter-propaganda in the Army. If a military person dies in the line of duty, then they died for the state, and all of its citizens. The state owes them. They are not able to pay for their child’s education or anything else, so the state owes the family this. That just quid pro quo in a kind of social contract. Cops and firefighters get the same thing I think.
The other think that I don’t think anyone who hasn’t served can fully understand, is that it is also an agreed upon benefit for a soldier. Soldiers are the only people in the world that run toward the sound of gun fire. That takes a lot, and its hard for a person to do if they don’t think the state will take care of their family when they get killed. So, that’s one aspect. Also, when you have an all volunteer force, you have to compete with the labor market for people. Contrary to common belief, it is really difficult to get into the military. The screening process is ridiculous, and everything but the shit jobs require citizenship, fitness, discipline, etc… If you took a random sample of the population most people wouldn’t make it in. Education a huge reason people join. It’s how I paid for school. I really didn’t have another way. These benefits are alright, but they don’t compare to the level of sacrifice that people endure, especially people the kind of people they want; the kind of people that can do better in the civilian world.
The second is that a lot of a soldiers compensation comes in the form of benefits for their family. The pay is shit, but when you add in the benefits, it’s actually not bad. The military has learned that by taking care of a person’s family, they make them more mission focused, and able to deal with being away for so long, but they also maintain better control. If for example they disobey orders, or whatever, family benefits can be stripped. If they die dishonorably, or in an illegal action, then the family won’t get the pension or benefits.
So, as far as I know these are the only people using this issue as a propaganda tool. This doesn’t make it difficult to criticize a war, this is criticizing the troops, and their sacrifice. If they feel that sacrifice is wasted then they should focus on the foreign policy of their nation.
“He claims that all of these “lazy academics” are bigots, but he forgets that many of them have put a lot of time into finding out more about HTS. ”
Also, that is simply not true. The arguments made my Forte and others are basically identical over time. Changes are simply additions to original assumptions and themes. I once tried to discuss this with Forte and others on his blog, but I got flamed immediately, and I was being as calm and reasonable as I am right now. I mean I’m far from right-wing.
I got out about five posts and then I was banned from the site. I have a buddy that specializes in Islamic terrorists and their online culture. The guy is sympathetic to many of their complaints, is respectful, has learned Islam in detail, and is trying to change policy to open a more open dialogue with these groups. He was also flamed by Forte and others, and lasted about as long as I did.
They live in an ecochamber, and allow no contradictory information to penetrate. Do you have any experience interacting with these guys? Not all are the same though. I mean David Peirce seems measured and reasonable to an extent. I was able to ask him a question in person once, but that seems to be an exception.
They were against the HTS from day one, and nothing has changed. Even the anarchists I know are more reasonable and open to debate. I know anarchists that would call these guys radicals.
Basically, these guys aren’t crazy, and you can understand why they are able to rationalize their views, but that doesn’t really change the final judgment. Islamic terrorists are fully rational when understood from their worldview, but I’m not going to justify what they do.
[...] But to Mark Dawson’s credit, he caught himself in a boring rant, and posted a mea culpa about butterflies and the Anthropologists for Justice and Peace. This riposte is my view was the really good rant, and had me laughing. I laughed at the rant [...]
HTS is dead: http://washingtonindependent.com/85373/house-panel-displeased-with-human-terrain-system All of you come across like a bunch of spoiled crybabies, but Rick more so than most. I mean, come on, if HTS critics were correct from the beginning, just admit that they knew what they understood the history leading up to this moment and you were green and didn’t. There is no special honor in being wrong first and then being right later; being slow just means you are slow. No need to brag about it.
Napkin Chagnon says “HTS is dead” but the article linked concludes “But my understanding is this is a matter of the Defense Department not delivering a report it needs to give the committee explaining the value of the program. If that report is forthcoming, as I understand it is, then the program shouldn’t experience any interruption in funding.”
Rumors of its death may be exaggerated.
HTS in Iraq and Afghanistan is merely the first experimental phase of a much longer term project, and the success of that long-term effort does not depend upon HTS meeting any of the short-term standards set by its critics.
I continue to be struck by the extent to which opposition to HTS is simply a surrogate for opposition to the U.S. war. Would HTS be so controversial if it had been located in the State Department? After all, anthropologists have long been participating in U.S. government programs — and multigovernment programs such as the World Bank — in ways that commit many of the sins that HTS critics allege.