Anthropology (catch all)

[marct]

Inside Anthropology, there is a tradition of looking at theater. There is an interesting article that was just published in the latest issue of Cultural Anthropology that ties in directly to post-combat operations (sort of Phase IV+).

DISPLACING VIOLENCE: Making Pentecostal Memory in Postwar Sierra Leone
ROSALIND SHAW
Tufts University, Medford, MA

In this article, I seek to locate the anthropology of social recovery within the work of memory. Following a decade of violent armed conflict in Sierra Leone, displaced youth in a Pentecostal church write and perform plays that are silent on the subject of the war, but renarrate it in the idiom of spiritual warfare against a subterranean demonic realm known as the Underworld. Ideas of the Underworld are part of a local retooling of the Pentecostal deliverance ministry to address Sierra Leone's years of war. Through their struggle against the Underworld, these Pentecostal youth reimagine Sierra Leone's war, reshaping experiences of violence that have shaped them and thereby transforming demonic memory into Pentecostal memory. Just as their own physical displacement is not an entirely negative condition, their displacement of violent memory is enabling rather than repressive. By "forgetting" the war as a direct realist account and reworking it through the lens of the Underworld, they use war itself to re-member their lives. Although they do not lose their memories of terror and violence, they learn to transform these in ways that allow them to create a moral life course in which they are much more than weak dependents.

I'm going to have to go through this one carefully, but it may have some useful insights into how people re-construct memories into a religious format.

Marc

[goesh]

It would be interesting to see some longitudinal studies on the duration of the conversion to non-violent conflict resolution techniques in their personal and collective lives. Implicit in my concept of conversion is the assumption of a desire to not again take up arms for a cause once having been able to recapture parts of their lost childhood and times of normalacy. Spirituality may or may not be shown to be as decisive a factor in all of this as say a decent job and peaceful communities in which to reside. Fat bellies and steady paychecks can go a long ways you know and I am not denigrating anything ritually spiritual that can and does assist in this process. However, having known a number of old WW2 Vets who after all the years of living the 'good life' still had regular nightmares, suffice it to say PTSD from combat is a strange psychological beast that is really not understood to this day.

P.W. Singer (Parameters, Winter 01-02) has some interesting things to say about kids and combat and he suggests that for those recently converted and/or coereced into combat roles, quick disruption works the best to then set the stage for conversion out of a combat mentality. With regards to the Sierra Leone kids you mention, we can quite possibly thank Executive Outcomes for the quick disruption that has set them hopefully on a better path - at least for the boys that were up in the diamond fields if Singer's assertions are correct. It would be an interesting Academic aside to see if and how many of the boys most into theatre-as-salvation were actually up in the diamond fields when EO hit that area and freed it in record time. Easy come, easy go as they say and the ol' Bible or ju-ju IMHO may or may not recapture lost youth as easily as we may desire, particularily in volatile 3rd world environments. If in looking at the mau-maus for instance, we see spirituality played a crucial role in working the lads up for some real butchery, the correlative opposite of what is happening in Sierra Leone with these kids.

It is gratifying to see Academics such as yourself having a genuine interest and making contributions to things Military and Security related when so many of your peers eschew said vital matters. Good day to you, sir.

[marct]

Hi Goesh,

It would be interesting to see some longitudinal studies on the duration of the conversion to non-violent conflict resolution techniques in their personal and collective lives.

I agree, it would be interesting. Theatre, and especially "religious" or "ritual" theatre, has an interesting history in large parts of Africa as a form of dealing with political conflict.

Implicit in my concept of conversion is the assumption of a desire to not again take up arms for a cause once having been able to recapture parts of their lost childhood and times of normalacy.

Hmmm, certainly something to test out. Honestly, though, I doubt that there is so much a desire to not take up arms again as there is to "place" the experiences within a coherent and comprehensible framework. In many ways, the very action of "conversion" may increase the likelihood of taking up arms, depending on the symbol system used to comprehend the original events.

Spirituality may or may not be shown to be as decisive a factor in all of this as say a decent job and peaceful communities in which to reside. Fat bellies and steady paychecks can go a long ways you know and I am not denigrating anything ritually spiritual that can and does assist in this process. However, having known a number of old WW2 Vets who after all the years of living the 'good life' still had regular nightmares, suffice it to say PTSD from combat is a strange psychological beast that is really not understood to this day.

It's an interesting problem that, I believe, works both ways: a lack of food and security motivated many of the Palestinian terrorist groups and, today, many of the al-Qaida people are recruited from middle class families because of a "spiritual poverty". On the PTSD issue, I agree. You might want to take a look at some of the work by WHR Rivers from WW I - he had some interesting takes on PTSD back when it was first being diagnosed as Shell Shock.

With regards to the Sierra Leone kids you mention, we can quite possibly thank Executive Outcomes for the quick disruption that has set them hopefully on a better path - at least for the boys that were up in the diamond fields if Singer's assertions are correct. It would be an interesting Academic aside to see if and how many of the boys most into theatre-as-salvation were actually up in the diamond fields when EO hit that area and freed it in record time.

I certainly agree with that! EO did a really good job in Sierra Leone. And you are righyt, it would be interesting to find out. I'll try t remember to email the author and see if she knows.

Easy come, easy go as they say and the ol' Bible or ju-ju IMHO may or may not recapture lost youth as easily as we may desire, particularily in volatile 3rd world environments. If in looking at the mau-maus for instance, we see spirituality played a crucial role in working the lads up for some real butchery, the correlative opposite of what is happening in Sierra Leone with these kids.

Certainly. Ritual is really about changes in perception more than anything else, and those changes can lead in any number of directions.

It is gratifying to see Academics such as yourself having a genuine interest and making contributions to things Military and Security related when so many of your peers eschew said vital matters. Good day to you, sir.

Thank you, sir. As to my peers and their opinions, well you are, unfortunately, correct.

Marc

[John T. Fishel]

If you haven't read Marc's article in the new issue of the magazine, I recommend it to you all. As a political scientist with enough courses for a graduate minor in anthropology, I learned much. Marc develops the theme of conflict between card carrying anthropologists and the "military" in a way that demands a dialogue - although how you have a dialogue with those who do not want to talk to you, I don't know.

The only quarrel I have with Marc is regarding his comments on Project Camelot - a study of political instability in Latin America in the 1960s sponsored by the US Army and conducted by the Special Operations Research Office at American University. The lead investigator was a political scientist, not an anthropologist. My quarrel, then, is that by confining the discussion to anthropolgy Marc doesn't show that the problem extends to nearly all the social sciences to a greater or lesser extent.

I would close these comments on two humorous notes:

1. Some have said that the last refuge for Marxist-Leninists is the American university.

2. Several years ago, a retired Army Col and FAO at the Army War College, Don Boose, created what he called the Malinowski Cultural Sensitivity Award. It was based on the fact that cultural anthropoligist Bronislaw Malinowski's 1930s studies of the Trobriand Islanders were marvels of cultural sensitivity. However, when his field notes surfaced some 30 years later in the 1960s, they were scathing and scatological comments on the customs and culture of those same people. In recognition of this human failing Don created the award to be given to that individual who, despite knowing better, makes a truly stupid and culturally insensitive remark. Needless to say, the majority of the recipients have been Army FAOs!

[goesh]

Dr. Tyrrell referenced the Savage Minds blog. I browsed and read for a couple of months from Savage Minds about a year ago and I remember thinking to myself, "there is a fair amount of morality being injected here." I find the cited comments by Paul McDowell and Gerald Sider to be somewhat alarming, beyond disconcerting. I can't help but wonder what in their heart-of-hearts McDowell and Sider would truly have to say about the tactics of ELF and PETA for instance, in light of their blatant efforts to politicize their Discipline(s). Indeed! "We're trying to do something against mealy-mouthed policies that don't hold responsible those scum with Ph.D.'s who stand beside torturers" (Gerald Sider) This is the language of disciplined, objective, professional science and highly paid Academics? It sounds more Marxist avant-garde.

McDowell bemoans the poor, exploited Natives with this bitter polemic cited by Dr. Tyrrell:"Like the Government and its military, corporations don't give a rat's posterior about so-called target populations." Fine, but where was his voice and the voices of others like him when the poor Natives were being exploited by the likes of Ward Chruchill out of the Universtiy of Colorado? Here was a Prof. on the fast tenure track who not only fabricated and misrepresented information on Native Americans, he also plagarized and misrepresented himself as being an Indian. Boas wouldn't like that now would he? What I call the silence of the lambs on not only the part of Anthropologists but Academics in general over this fiasco and unprofessional product associated with a male bovine's posterior, can be directly attributed to the politicizing of Academia. In short, Ward Churchill was blatantly anti-American, anti-Government and a Bush hater, which is all that saved him from being publically and vigorously castigated. In fact, some universities, like Wisconsin, paid him to come and give a presentation. Talk about savage minds, Churchill actually had the audacity to claim heritage from a couple of different tribes and to this day, I am not aware of any outrage expressed over this from the Academic community. A number of Native Americans have spoken out over this of course but one would have expected at least some outrage coming from the Anthropology camp.

[marct]

Hi Goesh,

Dr. Tyrrell referenced the Savage Minds blog. I browsed and read for a couple of months from Savage Minds about a year ago and I remember thinking to myself, "there is a fair amount of morality being injected here." I find the cited comments by Paul McDowell and Gerald Sider to be somewhat alarming, beyond disconcerting. I can't help but wonder what in their heart-of-hearts McDowell and Sider would truly have to say about the tactics of ELF and PETA for instance, in light of their blatant efforts to politicize their Discipline(s). Indeed! "We're trying to do something against mealy-mouthed policies that don't hold responsible those scum with Ph.D.'s who stand beside torturers" (Gerald Sider) This is the language of disciplined, objective, professional science and highly paid Academics? It sounds more Marxist avant-garde.

"Dr. Tyrrell"? Since when have you been so formal with me in your comments?

I definitely agree with you about the inclusion of "morality being injected" into the debates on Savage Minds. And believe me when I say it is not only there! The discipline has been politicized for years - sometimes for causes I would consider good, sometimes for causes I consider silly. BTW, Boas' work opposing race laws in the US in the 1920's - 1940's, his violent opposition to the Nazi takeover in Germany, and his insistence on mentoring and promoting women in academia are all examples of what I would consider to be "good causes".

I think that the major problem that has happened centers around an increasing marginalization of the discipline of Anthropology and the concomitant glorifying in marginal status by some people (not all). In part, this marginalization comes from a denying of advances in the biological sciences and an increasing refusal to consider biology as having anything to do with culture (this stems from a disciplinary reaction against the Nazi eugenics ideology).

I'm not going to write another paper here on it, so don't worry .

McDowell bemoans the poor, exploited Natives with this bitter polemic cited by Dr. Tyrrell:"Like the Government and its military, corporations don't give a rat's posterior about so-called target populations." Fine, but where was his voice and the voices of others like him when the poor Natives were being exploited by the likes of Ward Chruchill out of the Universtiy of Colorado? Here was a Prof. on the fast tenure track who not only fabricated and misrepresented information on Native Americans, he also plagarized and misrepresented himself as being an Indian. Boas wouldn't like that now would he? What I call the silence of the lambs on not only the part of Anthropologists but Academics in general over this fiasco and unprofessional product associated with a male bovine's posterior, can be directly attributed to the politicizing of Academia. In short, Ward Churchill was blatantly anti-American, anti-Government and a Bush hater, which is all that saved him from being publically and vigorously castigated. In fact, some universities, like Wisconsin, paid him to come and give a presentation. Talk about savage minds, Churchill actually had the audacity to claim heritage from a couple of different tribes and to this day, I am not aware of any outrage expressed over this from the Academic community. A number of Native Americans have spoken out over this of course but one would have expected at least some outrage coming from the Anthropology camp.

A very apropos question, Goesh, and one I can't really answer. I do know that some Anthropologists have spoken out against it but, in institutional settings where adopting that type of a moral stance is necessary for survival, it's not likely to happen that often. And, in many universities, the "anti-American, anti-Government and a Bush hater" trope is just normal <sigh>.

Marc

[marct]

Hello John,

If you haven't read Marc's article in the new issue of the magazine, I recommend it to you all. As a political scientist with enough courses for a graduate minor in anthropology, I learned much. Marc develops the theme of conflict between card carrying anthropologists and the "military" in a way that demands a dialogue - although how you have a dialogue with those who do not want to talk to you, I don't know.

Thanks for the recommendation . You are quite correct about me trying to develop the theme of a conflict between Anthropology and the "military". My intention was, indeed, to try and lay out where I saw that conflict coming from as well as some of the more extreme versions of it that are surfacing.

I have been concerned by the anti-corporation, anti-military stance within Anthropology for years, now. This is not because I do not believe that there have been corporate or military abuses of power - there have been and there continue to be. Rather, what has bothered me most, is the extreme form of polarization that has happened where any actions by the military and corporations are characterized as "evil". I honestly do not believe that any profitable form of dialog can happen where the "sides" automatically assume evil intentions on the part of the other.

Is a dialog possible? Certainly, but the strategy of setting one up and keeping it going has more in common with a COIN operation than with the more conventional "academic dialog".

The only quarrel I have with Marc is regarding his comments on Project Camelot - a study of political instability in Latin America in the 1960s sponsored by the US Army and conducted by the Special Operations Research Office at American University. The lead investigator was a political scientist, not an anthropologist. My quarrel, then, is that by confining the discussion to anthropolgy Marc doesn't show that the problem extends to nearly all the social sciences to a greater or lesser extent.

John, you are, of course, quite correct in that the problem certainly permeates the entirety of the social sciences. I didn't deal with any of the others for several reasons. First, I know Anthropology best and that is the discipline that has taken the most publicly radical stance. Second, over the past couple of years, the "military" has been identifying Anthropology as a "must recruit" discipline. Third, Anthropology and, to a lessor extent qualitative Sociology, uses a rather unique primary methodology that significantly alters the perception of the user. To my mind, this sets it in opposition to the more "theologically" oriented disciplines - the difference between gnosis and logos as it were.

I would close these comments on two humorous notes:

1. Some have said that the last refuge for Marxist-Leninists is the American university.

True, and the ones who are too radical even for American universities end up in Canada .

2. Several years ago, a retired Army Col and FAO at the Army War College, Don Boose, created what he called the Malinowski Cultural Sensitivity Award. It was based on the fact that cultural anthropoligist Bronislaw Malinowski's 1930s studies of the Trobriand Islanders were marvels of cultural sensitivity. However, when his field notes surfaced some 30 years later in the 1960s, they were scathing and scatological comments on the customs and culture of those same people. In recognition of this human failing Don created the award to be given to that individual who, despite knowing better, makes a truly stupid and culturally insensitive remark. Needless to say, the majority of the recipients have been Army FAOs!

I can think of a few Anthropologists who should receive it .

Marc

[goesh]

"First, I know Anthropology best and that is the discipline that has taken the most publicly radical stance."

In a horse race with Sociology in this category, Anthro might win by a nose. Even after Chancellor DiStefano from U of C set forth the findings of a 5 member panel levied against Churchill, the Public Sociology blogs had any number of credentialed Academics rallying to his defense. Unbelievable.

In DeStefano's statement is mentioned that despite Churchill misrepresenting himself as a Native American, it was not an actionable offense. This could suggest that the hyper-charged politicized environment of Western Academia has yet to reach its zenith, when lying on employment applications in order to attain a salary is not actionable due to other more pressing considerations, like First Amendment rights.

From the Committee's report comes this gem: " However, questions raised in regard to the allegation of misrepresentation of ethnicity to gain credibility and an audience for scholarship were also reviewed, and the Committee felt that such misrepresentation might constitute research misconduct and failure to meet the standards". This sounds like something evil corporations and the evil government would do to 3rd worlders, doesn't it? One could suggest conversely the smaller and poorer an ethnic group is, the less professional standards are applied in interacting with them. Anyway, this Post will probably be sent to the My Bloody Soapbox section of this forum......

[marct]

Anyway, this Post will probably be sent to the My Bloody Soapbox section of this forum......

Not yet . Actually, Academic ethics fit here, and that's what you are talking about.

On the issue of "lying on employment applications", I do have a couple of comments. First, I have never felt comfortable with the race declarations that may American universities use. Technically, they are not required but, according to a number of people I've talked with, you'd better list yours. The first time I filled one out, I was flumoxed: the definitions were so "weird" and poorly defined that I ended up checking off every box. Needless to say, the head of HR emailed me wanting to know what the frak I was doing. My comments back were along the lines of my skin is white, my family lived in Spain 1200 years ago (their definition of "hispanic"), by Mohawk law I am a Mohawk (long story), my family originated on the Asian steppes 2000 years ago, and all modern humans came out of Africa. Her response was, we only care about 3 generations back. These days I just tick off "White" .

Let's get back to academic ethics for a minute. One of the things that has always fascinated me about "academic ethics" is how plastic it is depending on who you are and what your supposed identity is. For example, when I was applying for PhD programs, I originally wanted to study how modern Witchcraft was being institutionalized (I'd done my MA on that topic). I was informed by the Chair of one department that a) I knew a lot about the topic (we'd talked for over an hour) and b) I would never get a job in academia with that specialization because I was a man.

To my mind, "ethics" should be based on transcendent principles. I honestly think that Boas tried to do this 100 years ago. Somewhere along the line, however, these principles got replaced with moral statements masquerading as principles. For example, when I started my PhD fieldwork, it was drummed into me how "privileged" a position the ethnographer is in, and how unequal a power relationship exists between the ethnographer and their subjects. Certainly, this is true in some cases but, in my case, I was doing my fieldwork in the offices of the largest accounting / consulting firm in Canada. There was an unequal power relationship all right, but I certainly didn't have the whip hand!

I truly doubt that, had I been a student of Boas in the 1920's or 1930's, I would have had to deal with either of these problems .

Marc

[120mm]

I love your "race" comment, Marc. I am allegedly Irish-Something, but because I am an anonymous adoptee, who really knows?

My eye-doctor studies ethnic anthropomorphic(sp?) characteristics, and claims my large and well-developed epicanthric eye folds suggest Asian or Middle-eastern descent.

Basically, in the racist world of "equal opportunity" you are what you say you are.

[120mm]

Marc, all, is it time for the invention of another field to supplant Anthropology in the field of military matters? My MA is in International Relations, which was "invented" to supplant political science in the field of post-WWII nation-state relations. I see so many interdisciplinary PhDs these days that you'd think some ambitious fellows could find a school interested in producing some PhDs who saw war as a "normal" state of human existence and would be interested in studying what makes people fight and what makes them decide to stop fighting.

It seems to me that COIN is the art/science of determining how to make a person/culture lay down arms, or decide not to pick them up in the first place.

You'd need to call it something, though.....

[marct]

Hi 120mm,

This is a really good question - so good, in fact, that I snipped it out to create a new thread.

Marc, all, is it time for the invention of another field to supplant Anthropology in the field of military matters? My MA is in International Relations, which was "invented" to supplant political science in the field of post-WWII nation-state relations.

Anthropology, in many ways, started as a Science of Humanity (Anthropos - Mankind; logos - "authoritative word" or science) for some (e.g. Wilson) and as a Science of Culture for others. Both of these projects were, for all intents and purposes, highly "inter-disciplinary" and neither, to my mind, has ever been completed despite several really promising lines of research.

While I am not really an historian of the discipline, I leave that to such greats as Regna Darnell, I *think* that one of the main reasons why Anthropology has not developed these lines of research is the limits of the languages we use. For example, much of what we study is "patterns": patterns of action, patterns of thinking, etc., and the relationships between these patterns and certain other factors (e.g. environment, livelihood, technology, etc.). But we use natural languages to describe almost all of this, rather than mathematics.

We have used mathematics in some instances, e.g. some of the early work by E.B. Tylor (e.g. On a Method of Investigating the Development of Institutions - 1888), most of the material on physical Anthropology, and some statistics in cultural Anthropology (mainly descriptive). Most of our work, however, doesn't use mathematics and this is, to my mind, a real handicap. I think that we will have to get over the disciplinary neuroses about math before we can move forward .

I see so many interdisciplinary PhDs these days that you'd think some ambitious fellows could find a school interested in producing some PhDs who saw war as a "normal" state of human existence and would be interested in studying what makes people fight and what makes them decide to stop fighting.

It seems to me that COIN is the art/science of determining how to make a person/culture lay down arms, or decide not to pick them up in the first place.

Personally, I would hold that we should treat conflict, including both sublimated conflict such as business and sports and over conflict from politics to open warfare as a natural continuum. The differing "states", probably "quasi-stable equilibria" to use an old functionalist term, would have specific perceptually (i.e. cultural) defined boundary conditions and would probably operate under different inter-culturally defined "natural laws".

As such, COIN would be one particular engineering application of these "natural laws" in one particular state (an unstable state of "insurgency") whose counterpart would be insurgency theory (e.g. the old Maoist stuff). Each of these engineering applications could, then, profitably be examined in terms of their vector states or attempts to produce change in a particular dimension that defines the boundaries of the state (e.g. security, basic needs, social organization, etc.). If we took this line of thought forward, then the Islamist irhabi are practicing a rather different form of insurgency "engineering".

You'd need to call it something, though.....[/quote]

How about "Applied Interdisciplinarity" ? Actually, that's the term we are using for a new journal I'm involved in starting, and it certainly seems to capture the basic idea.

Marc

[goesh]

"...war as a "normal" state of human existence and would be interested in studying what makes people fight and what makes them decide to stop fighting."
That's the ticket to sell the need for more Anthropological and Sociological insight and contributions but there are strong vested interests in viewing the Military as an essentially destructive enterprise run by barbarians.

[marct]

Hi Goesh,

That's the ticket to sell the need for more Anthropological and Sociological insight and contributions but there are strong vested interests in viewing the Military as an essentially destructive enterprise run by barbarians.

Unfortunate, but true. I was talking with one of my students last term about this very problem and trying to find an historical analogy that captured my thinking about why "we" (social scientists) should be involved in the current global COIN. As usual in cases like this, the discussion surrounded professional ethics and "morality" which, in turn, led to a discussion of the relative values of individual vs. corporate mysticism. I really believe it's time for someone to post the Social Scientific equivalent of Luther's 95 Theses to the doorway of PC academia.

Marc

[Tc2642]

I really believe it's time for someone to post the Social Scientific equivalent of Luther's 95 Theses to the doorway of PC academia.

Interesting, What would you include your theses, if you had the chance to write such a document?

[Stan]

My Psychology professor on our first day circa 1982: "According to Maslow, an individual is ready to act upon the growth needs if and only if the deficiency needs are met. The biggest human tragedy is that most people simply do what they are told."

He continued: "This form of reduced maturity is dangerous when coupled with authoritarianism and dominance, as we have learned from Saddam, Hitler, and others."

Marc, does Maslow have a point in this thread ?

[marct]

Hi Folks,

Interesting, What would you include your theses, if you had the chance to write such a document?

Tc2642, think part of the answer to that question is in Stan's comment.

My Psychology professor on our first day circa 1982: "According to Maslow, an individual is ready to act upon the growth needs if and only if the deficiency needs are met. The biggest human tragedy is that most people simply do what they are told."

He continued: "This form of reduced maturity is dangerous when coupled with authoritarianism and dominance, as we have learned from Saddam, Hitler, and others."

Marc, does Maslow have a point in this thread ?

Stan, I think the answer is "yes". Tc2642 asked me what I would include in such theses, and I think Maslow's ideas contain some of the answers. So, let me take a whack at 5 thesis statements.

1. Giants exist so that people can see farther, not to crush inquiring minds.
2. All knowledge is inherently limited and, in that sense, "false". As such, the goal of any science is not the production of "perfection" but the continual struggle to achieve it.
3. "Proofs" that can be communicated exist only in limited components of described part of transcendental reality and should never be mistaken for transcendental "Truth".
4. Information is a difference that makes a difference (Definition by Gregory Bateson).
5. How we communicate defines both what we are capable of communicating and the limits of information that can be transmitted and received.

I think I'll leave it at that for now - I have to finish editing a case study for an HRM text book .

Marc

[GRIM]

Hi all,
This looks like an interesting thread, so I signed up to add to it. I did my undergraduate work in anthropology and completed a year of doctoral work before my health shut me down. Violence and warfare are primary interests of mine, particularly the synthesis of biological/evolutionary approaches with realistic (not dogmatic and PC) cultural anthropology. I wrote a short paper on this if anyone is interested. Violence and warfare are as "natural" as any other human behavior and the tools of the anthropologist can be very effective in studying them if the individual's approach is not tainted by their "politics." Unfortunately, those who study these subjects looking for answers and not just PC ones become pariahs in the Ivory Tower very quickly, although there are some exceptions.

Here are some papers by peace researcher Johann van der Dennen, as well as his entire book the Origin of War: http://rint.rechten.rug.nl/rth/dennen/dennen3.htm

[marct]

Hi GRIM,

Hi all,
This looks like an interesting thread, so I signed up to add to it. I did my undergraduate work in anthropology and completed a year of doctoral work before my health shut me down. Violence and warfare are primary interests of mine, particularly the synthesis of biological/evolutionary approaches with realistic (not dogmatic and PC) cultural anthropology. I wrote a short paper on this if anyone is interested. Violence and warfare are as "natural" as any other human behavior and the tools of the anthropologist can be very effective in studying them if the individual's approach is not tainted by their "politics." Unfortunately, those who study these subjects looking for answers and not just PC ones become pariahs in the Ivory Tower very quickly, although there are some exceptions.

Here are some papers by peace researcher Johann van der Dennen, as well as his entire book the Origin of War: http://rint.rechten.rug.nl/rth/dennen/dennen3.htm

Thanks for the link! I'd definately be interested in reading your paper as well. BTW, Jerome Barkow was my Ph.D. external and I've used a fair bit of evolutionary psychology / sociobiology in my own work. Glad to have you on board.

Marc

[Stan]

Grim,
Welcome !

Like Spencer, he emphasized that warfare succeeds not so much through the genocidal elimination of rivals as by promoting superior organization and obedience to leadership: the most obedient and the tamest tribes are the strongest. "The compact [probably meaning the same as Spencer's 'cohesive'] tribes win, and the compact tribes are the tamest. Civilisation begins, because the beginning of civilisation is a military advantage" (p. 47). There was no doubt in his mind that the "strongest killed out the weakest as they could". Progress, habitually thought of as a normal fact in human society, is actually a rare occurrence among peoples. Of the existence of progress in the military art there can be no doubt, however, nor of its corollary that the most advanced will destroy the weaker, that the more compact will eliminate the scattered, and that the more civilized are the more compact (Hofstadter, 1955).

I would be sincerely interested in your views regarding the most recent Rwandan genocides (April to July 94). I watched it and see it today in my dreams (nightmares).

My previous post:

The first massacres in Rwanda took place in 1959. Thereafter, almost in a regular manner, killings of the Batutsi became a habit. In the 1960s, 1970s, 1980s and early 1990s massacres of Batutsi were common. Between April and July 1994, over 1 million Rwandese people, mainly Batutsi and some Bahutu opposition were killed by the genocidal regime. So many people were involved in the killings. Those who planned and organised the genocide include the late President, Major General Juvenal Habyarimana, top government officials, including members of the so-called Provisional Government, the presidential Guard, the National Gendarmerie, the Rwanda Government Forces (FAR), the MRND-CDR militia (Interahamwe), local officials, and many Bahutu in the general population.

This sounds like a poorly translated para, or a bad smoker's habit.

Marc, please also step in as you are most welcome.

Regards, Stan