In this weeks readings, the most interesting idea that stuck out to me was the use of anthropologist to aid in military oppressions, for example the Human Terrain project run by the US Government. In this class we have considered the role of the anthropologist as a conservationist, an invader, and an educator, but never an informant. Though the difference between educator and informant may seem miniscule, i believe it makes all the difference in an area like anthropology because it acts as the line between exploitation and information. Regardless of its seemingly legitimate aim, I think it is impossible that the use of anthropologists in Iraq could do anything but harm the Iraqi people. The bottom line is that, outside of a purely ethnological curiosity, its not our place or a necessity to understand the delicate and intricate social relationships that exist in Iraq. Especially in a military setting, the information gained will only be used against the Iraqi people. Although cultural tolerance is sited, the information gained will really only be used for further suppression and archaic colonialization of Iraq. In the New York Times article, the opposition to the Human Terrain Teams are worried that “whatever their intention, the scholars who work with the military could inadvertently cause all anthropologists to be viewed as intelligence gatherers for the American military”. For me, this brings up questions of the power of knowledge and the importance of the way its used. I cannot help but think of the genesis parable of the tree of knowledge and the tree of good and evil; knowledge of things can often go beyond any benefits and corrupt with power. Sometimes the pride of humanity drives us to impose ourselves onto the cultures and lives of others wither it is to oppress and control ( like the US in Iraq) or to understand and document ( the role of the anthropologist). Either way, what has to be considered is the benefit of the people themselves, and if it is duly justified when it comes at the cost of the humanity of people.
In this weeks readings, the most interesting idea that stuck out to me was the use of anthropologist to aid in military oppressions, for example the Human Terrain project run by the US Government. In this class we have considered the role of the anthropologist as a conservationist, an invader, and an educator, but never an informant. Though the difference between educator and informant may seem miniscule, i believe it makes all the difference in an area like anthropology because it acts as the line between exploitation and information. Regardless of its seemingly legitimate aim, I think it is impossible that the use of anthropologists in Iraq could do anything but harm the Iraqi people. The bottom line is that, outside of a purely ethnological curiosity, its not our place or a necessity to understand the delicate and intricate social relationships that exist in Iraq. Especially in a military setting, the information gained will only be used against the Iraqi people. Although cultural tolerance is sited, the information gained will really only be used for further suppression and archaic colonialization of Iraq. In the New York Times article, the opposition to the Human Terrain Teams are worried that “whatever their intention, the scholars who work with the military could inadvertently cause all anthropologists to be viewed as intelligence gatherers for the American military”. For me, this brings up questions of the power of knowledge and the importance of the way its used. I cannot help but think of the genesis parable of the tree of knowledge and the tree of good and evil; knowledge of things can often go beyond any benefits and corrupt with power. Sometimes the pride of humanity drives us to impose ourselves onto the cultures and lives of others wither it is to oppress and control ( like the US in Iraq) or to understand and document ( the role of the anthropologist). Either way, what has to be considered is the benefit of the people themselves, and if it is duly justified when it comes at the cost of the humanity of people.
ReplyDelete