lorenz | antropologi.info | Page 290 of 695

Fieldwork reveals: Bush administration is lying about the “war on terror” in the Sahara

Published on December 11, 2006 by lorenz Posted in Africa, anthropology (general), anthropology in the news, ethics, journal articles / papers, poverty, University / Academia, Us and Them

“The US is sending troops to the Sahara desert of west Africa to open what it calls a new front in the war on terror”, the Guardian reported three years ago. “The ‘official truth’ about the ‘war on terror’ on the Sahara-Sahel is a ‘lie’”, anthropologist Jeremy Keenan writes in Anthropology Today December and argues that in this situation, anthropologists have to act as independent witnesses and have to refuse collaborating with intelligence agencies and government bodies.

Keenan has been – according to himself – the sole ‘external’ or ‘foreign’ witness to a sequence of events associated with the US administration’s ‘global war on terror’ that many Tuareg believe has irreversibly transformed the central Sahara and Sahel, as well as their lives and livelihoods. Keenan has done research in the central Sahara for more then 30 years. He writes:

As a result of more or less continuous and at times microscopically detailed field research, much of which has been undertaken by and in collaboration with local Tuareg in Algeria, Niger, Mali and Libya, and with Toubou in Chad, we now know that all the incidents used to justify the launch of this new front in the ‘war on terror’ were either fiction, in that they simply did not happen, or were manufactured by US and Algerian military intelligence services.

(…)

How and why did such a monstrous deception take place? The ‘how’ is simple. First, the Algerian and US military intelligence services channelled a stream of disinformation to an industry of ‘terrorism experts’, conservative ideologues and a compliant media, whose prevailing ‘cut and paste’ culture has made them the perfect mouthpiece for an administration that operates through the Orwellian concept of ‘reality control’ and ‘proof by reiteration’. The result is that several thousand articles have turned the great ‘lie’ into the ‘official truth’.

Second, if a story is to be fabricated, it helps if the location is far away and ‘beyond verification’. The Sahara is the perfect place – larger than the United States and effectively closed to public access.

As we know, the CIA has started sponsering anthropologists to gather sensitive information in their so-called “war on terror”.

Here, anthropologists have a key role to play, Keenan writes:

The role of the anthropologist in such situations (as in all his/her work) must be to provide field-based information that can counter the propaganda emanating from the ever growing (and now increasingly privatized) intelligence and other war agencies. At the very least, the anthropologist must be the witness, the recorder, perhaps the interpreter and, where necessary, the author of the ‘truth’.

In the present critical juncture, anthropologists have a key role to play in the ‘war on terror’: to remain located outside the corrupting sphere of intelligence agencies and government bodies and to act as independent witnesses and reporters. This requires considerable courage, not necessarily because of dangers in the field situation, but because access to the field, on which the anthropologist’s professional career often depends, is likely to be terminated.

Even more serious for anthropologists in American universities is that such actions, especially in the prevailing‘McCarthyist’ climate of the Bush-Cheney administration, may increasingly lead to self-censorship as the result of threats to employment prospects.

The risks are not so high in ‘old Europe’. But there is no certainty that similar pressures as those in the USA will not be brought to bear on anthropologists and other academics in the UK. After all, it was only in October that the Foreign and Commonwealth Office’s offer of £1.3 million to the Economic and Social Research Council (ESRC) and Arts and Humanities Research Council (AHRC)45 attempted to inveigle academics, anthropologists in particular, to help it in ‘combating terrorism by countering radicalisation’.

In this duplicitous incident, the Association of Social Anthropologists (ASA) played a key role in getting the project cancelled, at least for the time being. With such potential threats to anthropologists greater now than at any time in the past, it is imperative that our professional associations publicly recommit themselves to the protection of all anthropologists from any such pressures and threats.

The text is not available online (for subscribers only. But Keenan has written on this issue here as well:

Jeremy Keenan: Bush’s Imaginary Front in the War on Terror (AlterNet, 28.9.06)

More information:

Saharan peoples are falsely accused of terrorist acts (ESRC Science Today, June 2004)

Jason Motlagh: The Trans Sahara Counter-Terrorism Initiative: U.S. takes terror fight to Africa’s ‘Wild West’ (Global Research, San Francisco Chronicle, 30.12.05)

Anthropology Today editor Gustaaf Houtman comments:

If anthropologists, as a particularly exposed branch of academia, are to have any value at all in the ‘war on terror’, we must, to adopt a Quaker maxim coined in Nazi Germany, ‘talk truth to power’. But talking truth is clearly not enough. We must, first, be wary of ‘spin’ and find new and more appropriate ways to converse with government agencies without compromising our academic independence. And second, we must ensure we are actually heard. So let us engage the world of popular communications to our best ability on issues that matter.

UPDATE:

The dangerous militarisation of anthropology

“War on terror”: CIA sponsers anthropologists to gather sensitive information / see also debate on this on Savage Minds

Anthropology and Counterinsurgency: The Strange Story of Their Curious Relations

Bush, “war of terror” and the erosion of free academic speech: Challenges for anthropology

USA: Censorship threatens fieldwork – A call for resistance

Two Books Explore the Sins of Anthropologists Past and Present

Embedded anthropology? Anthropologist studies Canadian soldiers in the field

“Tribal Iraq Society” – Anthropologists engaged for US war in Iraq

"The US is sending troops to the Sahara desert of west Africa to open what it calls a new front in the war on terror", the Guardian reported three years ago. "The ‘official truth’ about the ‘war on terror’ on…

Islam in Morocco: TV and Internet more important than mosques

Published on December 10, 2006 by lorenz Posted in Africa, anthropology in the news, internet, media, religion cosmology, technology

Another example of how religious and cultural practices change: A soon to be released survey of religious practices in Morocco will show that the majority of Moroccans prefer to pray alone, and use audiovisual media and the internet for information on their religion, according to Magharebia.com:

About 65% of those interviewed pray on a regular basis and a significant portion of Moroccans practise their religion in an individual manner, rather than collectively. As for sources of religious knowledge, the survey has demonstrated the ever-growing role of satellite channels, audiovisual media in general, cassettes and the Internet. These channels have become essential sources, taking the place of traditional written sources, to the level of 85%.

The survey also picks up on the shrinking role of institutions providing religious teaching in the acquisition of religious knowledge. These institutions, such as the family, the mosque, the school, the brotherhood etc., do not play the role they used to play in giving Moroccan people a grounding in religion.

As for the status of women, the survey highlights the ever-growing role of women in the field of religion.

The survey was carried out by three Moroccan researchers — sociologist Mohamed El Eyadi, political analyst Mohamed Tozy and anthropologist Hassan Rachik — who were assisted by a team of field workers.

>> read the whole story in Magharebia.com

What does it mean to be Muslim in a secular society? Anthropologist thinks ahead

Islam: Embracing modernity while remaining true to their traditions and core beliefs

Book review: Mahmood Mamdani: “Good Muslim, Bad Muslim”

Islam in Europe: Mainstream society as the provider of conditions

Islam Is Gaining a Foothold in Chiapas

How Islamic cassette sermons challenge the moral and political landscape of the Middle East

Lila Abu-Lughod: It’s time to give up the Western obsession with veiled Muslim women

Wie nützlich ist der Begriff “Kultur” in der Zuwanderungsdebatte?

Published on December 10, 2006 by lorenz Posted in Deutschland, Oesterreich, Schweiz, Ethnologie Sozialanthropologie Kulturanthropologie, Grenzüberschreitend, multikulturell, Kultur Tradition, Migration Integration, Wir und die Anderen

Kultur ist einer der schwierigesten Begriffe in der Ethnologie. Nachdem die allermeisten Ethnologen ihn immer weniger benutzen, ist er besonders bei Nationalisten und lautstarken Islamkritikern beliebt. Karin Nungeßer hat im Freitag einen schoenen Text zum Nutzen des Begriffs “Kultur” in der Debatte um Zuwanderung in Deutschland geschrieben – inspiriert von einem offenbar umstrittenen Film (Knallhart):

Die Botschaft, nicht nur im Film, lautet: Wenn wir Zusammenstöße vermeiden wollen, müssen wir wachsam sein – und ihnen im Zweifelsfall besser aus dem Weg gehen. Die Unterscheidung zwischen “uns” und “den anderen” wird dabei ebenso vorausgesetzt wie legitimiert – mit dem fatalen Effekt, dass jede Differenz, die “Ausländer” betrifft, als potenziell bedrohliche wahrgenommen wird.

Hier ist “Kultur” der zentrale Begriff, um zwischen “uns” und “den anderen” zu unterscheiden.

Keine einfache Sache offenbar, denn das Statistische Bundesamt hat mittlerweile nicht weniger als zehn verschiedene Kategorien von “Menschen mit Migrationshintergrund”, z.B.

– “Ausländer”,
– “Spätaussiedler”
– “Eingebürgerte”
– “Deutsche mit einseitigem Migrationshintergrund”
– “Deutsche nach ius-solis-Regelung”
– hier geborene Kinder, die sich spätestens mit 23 Jahren zwischen ihrer deutschen und ihrer nicht deutschen Staatsangehörigkeit entscheiden müssen.

Diese “anderen Deutschen” (zu denen ich laut dieser Definition also auch zugehoere) machen über 15 Millionen Menschen und damit knapp ein Fünftel der Gesamtbevölkerung Deutschlands aus.

Die Freitag Autorin zitiert Ethnologen Martin Sökefeld, der feststellt, dass der Gebrauch von “Kultur” als geteilter Bestand von Gruppen sich in der Ethnologie weitgehend erledigt hat:

Zu groß ist das Bewusstsein, dass Kultur von Menschen in ihrer sozialen Praxis geschaffen wird, dass sie daher Konflikten unterliegt und sich permanent verändert. Deshalb haben die Angehörigen einer Gruppe kaum durchgängig ein und dieselbe Kultur – auch wenn genau das behauptet wird. So wenig die autochthone Bevölkerung also samt und sonders auf die Werte von Christentum und Aufklärung verpflichtet werden kann, so wenig unterliegen Migranten und Migrantinnen einer eigenen “Kultur”, die ihr Denken und Handeln bestimmt.

Sie schreibt auch von einer Studie unter muslimischen Kopftuchtraegerinnen, die – nicht ueberraschend – folgendes ergab:

So gaben zwar 95 Prozent als wichtiges Lebensziel an, ihren Glauben leben zu wollen. Die meisten von ihnen – fast 80 Prozent und damit ungefähr genauso viele unter den kopftuchlosen deutschen Frauen – sehen es jedoch als ebenso wichtig an, “möglichst frei und unabhängig zu sein”.

Ihre Schlussfolgerung:

Wenn offenbar selbst streng religiöse Muslimas in Deutschland mit einem Mix aus traditionellen und modernen “westlichen” Werten leben, ist die Idee einer kulturellen Differenz zwischen “uns” und “denen” dann nicht ehrlicherweise als das zu verabschieden, was sie ist: eine Ideologie, die uns schadet? Weil sie Integration erschwert und den sozialen Frieden in der Einwanderungsgesellschaft Deutschland gefährdet?

Tatsächlich geht es nämlich um viel. Das Reden über “Kultur” ändert ja nichts am sozialen und politischen Machtgefälle zwischen Mehrheitsgesellschaft und Einwanderern, das in der Tat gravierend ist und dringend angegangen werden muss. So brauchen wir, um nur die beiden wichtigsten Punkte zu nennen, endlich ein Schulsystem, das Kinder von Geringqualifizierten nicht länger eklatant benachteiligt, und politische Mitbestimmungsrechte für alle, die hier dauerhaft leben.

>> zum Text im Freitag

SIEHE AUCH:

“Anders Deutsch” und “Die virtuelle zweite Generation”

Schule, Integration und Kosmopolitismus

Wieviel Zusammenhalt braucht eine Gesellschaft? Notizen zu einer hysterischen Debatte in Deutschland

Wo Araber, Berber, Juden und Hippies zusammenleben – Doris Byers Ethnologie

Schiffauer: “Die Deutschen haben nur auf jemanden wie Kelek gewartet”

Ausländerhetze im SPIEGEL: “Hätte niemals in Frankreich publiziert werden können”

Die ethnologische Kritik am Kultur-Konzept

The Culture Struggle: How cultures are instruments of social power

Kindesmissbrauch bei den Aborigines: Kultur als Vorwand

For free migration: Open the borders!

Racism: The Five Major Challenges for Anthropology

Das spezielle Verhältnis der Hindus zu ihren Göttern

Published on December 10, 2006 by lorenz Posted in Asien, Ethnologie Sozialanthropologie Kulturanthropologie, Religion Spiritualität, Kosmologie

Ungefähr ein Sechstel der Menschheit gehört den Hindu-Traditionen an. Das Verhältnis der Hindus zu ihren Göttern ist anders als das der meisten Christen, lernen wir in einem Beitrag des orf. Ethnologe Chris Fuller von der London School of Economics sagt:

Es gibt nicht nur unendlich viele Göttinnen und Götter, es gibt auch keinen absoluten Unterschied zwischen den Gottheiten und den Menschen, wie das die westlichen Religionen sehen. Ganz im Gegenteil: Diese Beziehung ist flexibel und kontinuierlich. Für einen Hindu ist es völlig sinnvoll, zu sagen, dass ein menschliches Wesen göttlich wird, oder dass sich eine Gottheit in menschlicher Form manifestiert. Wenn Hindus also ihren Gottesdienst feiern, dann geht es nicht nur darum, dass sie der Gottheit näher kommen, sondern gewissermaßen wie die Gottheit werden, weil sie Kraft von der Gottheit bekommen.

>> weiter beim orf

SIEHE AUCH:

Wikipedia zu Hinduismus

Wieso immer noch Kasten in Indien?

Dokumentaren “Naive Norge” handler ikke om innvandring

Published on December 7, 2006 by lorenz Posted in individ og samfunn, innvandring migrasjon, Norge, sosialantropologi i Norge, Sverige og Danmark, vi og de andre

(utkast) Etter å ha sett filmen “Naive Norge” forstår jeg ikke lenger bråket den skapte. Filmen handler nemlig ikke om innvandring, men om et menneske med psykiske lidelser. Hvis den skulle handlet om innvandring må filmen har vært en parodi.

Men nå forstår jeg bedre Thomas Hylland Eriksen når han sier til Dagsavisen at “filmskaperen burde vært beskyttet mot seg selv”. Fordi hvis fotografen i filmen er en reell person så har han nemlig mistet sitt ansikt ved å blottlegge sine personlige problemer i all offentlighet. Det skulle vært TV2s ansvar å forhindre.

Det er som Majoran Vivekananthan skriver:

Som seer sitter jeg med inntrykk av de bildene som ble presentert av Holmlia som godt miljø. Dersom alle de personlige kommentarene til fotografen hadde blitt fjernet, ville vi sett en utmerket film om det flerkulturelle Holmlia.

Filmen viser nemlig pakistanere og afrikanere som hyggelige og som Holmlia-patrioter. De forteller gjerne og sier mye klokt. Etter slike hyggelige innslag ser vi fotografen stå bak en regnvått vindusrute der han kommer med hat-tirader om “voldelige innvandrere”.

Filmen er helt annerledes enn jeg hadde forventet på grunn av det jeg leste i avisene. Filmen viser ingen konflikter (det eneste er en kort diskusjon med naboen som kan stå i sammenheng med fotografens ustabile psykiske helse). Filmen kan ikke være noe annet enn en parodi eller en studie av en mann med tilpasningsproblemer som trenger behandling.

OPPDATERINGER: På en måte har Odd Isungset, redaksjonssjef i Dokument2 i TV2, et poeng når han sier til Rushprint at regissøren byr på sine egne fordommer i filmen. Den er en studie av fordommer (og altså ikke nødvendigvis integreringspolitikk):

– Vi mener at denne personlige politiske dokumentaren fra Christofer Owes år på Holmlia gir oss et innblikk i en del av Norge som er interessant. (…) Den inneholder også en del scener som kan oppfattes som kritikk av norsk ensomhetskultur, og er dermed mer nyansert enn det som går fram i kritikken mot den.

Og Tonje Brustuen konkluderer også med at “Christofer Owe er en mann med psykologiske trekk som gjør ham uegnet til å uttale seg politisk” (etter at hun først hadde trodd at filmen ikke kunne være noe annet enn en parodi).”
– Vet du hva, jeg føler meg dårlig likt, sier [fotografen] og jeg sitter her og tenker at det er jaggu ikke rart, så irriterende som du er, mener også skribenten på Verden sett fra Sophienberg der en leser påpeker at fotografen ikke bare aldri hadde spist kebab før. Han sa til og med at han ikke vet hva hasj er!

Og på spørsmålet om det stemmer at han aldri før har spist kebab sier han til Morgenbladet at han er blitt “kraftig engstelig”. Og etter filmen har han fått “en følelse av at mange er ute etter å ta meg”. Paranoid?

FLERE OPPDATERINGER (9.12.06):

God kommentar fra Bjørgulv Braanen (Klassekampen, 9.12.06, kun på papir):

Dokumentaren er ytterst avslørende for filmskaperen selv, og viser at fremmedfrykt og islamofobi kan trives og vokse, ganske uberørt av den reele sosiale virkeligheten som omgir oss

Og i en av de grundigste kommentarene skriver antropologen Monica Five Aarset at filmen viser et velfungerende flerkulturelt samfunn og at fotografen mangler sosiale evner:

Vi møter en sympatisk taxi sjåfør fra Ghana som forteller om det han opplever som et ensomhetens-problem i Norge, gutter med kristen og muslimsk bakgrunn som tilhører samme vennegjeng – en vennegjeng som ser ut til å være preget av humor og selvironi, fler-kulturelle/etniske fotballag og mange fornøyde Holmliabeboere.
(…)
Filmens en av mange lavmål eller høydepunkter, alt etter om man ser det humoristiske i det, er når Owe har filmet seg selv som en mørk siluett i en helt mørk leilighet og uttaler med dyster indignert stemme: “Nå stiger det opp en eim av chili eller karri eller hva de nå har i maten sin – det er andre gang idag”. Eller når sitter alene inne i sin mørke leilighet, ser desillusjonert inn i kameraet og sier “Jeg hadde vel aldri trodd at livet mitt skulle bli på denne måten – med naboer som skriker i munnen på hverandre på et språk jeg ikke kan forstå”, mens vi hører mennesker i naboene le og snakke med hverandre.

Dette er hans utgangspunkt for å være negativ til Holmlia, til utviklingen i Norge og til akademias fremstilling av Norge.

>> Oppsummering av debatten inkl medieklipp: “Naive Norge”: Tar nordmenn slike programmer alvorlig?

(utkast) Etter å ha sett filmen "Naive Norge" forstår jeg ikke lenger bråket den skapte. Filmen handler nemlig ikke om innvandring, men om et menneske med psykiske lidelser. Hvis den skulle handlet om innvandring må filmen har vært en parodi.…