Human Terrain System

I feel a pressing need to weigh in. This is by no means new news to anthropologists, but it is starting to come to light in popular media in a worrisome way.

The United States military has allocated some 40 million dollars to fund what they term, "Human Terrain Systems." Simply put (though it is not a simple thing) the military is using Ph.D level cultural anthropologists to acquire military intelligence at home and abroad in the Iraqi and Afghani fields. This ranges from field research, to translation and to cultural mediation and education. In two recent articles from the New York Times and US News and World Report, this program as been addressed in a way that seems to celebrate is effectiveness. In both these articles they mention, if briefly, the debate that is surrounding this program within University and professional anthropological organizations. However, the program is addressed mostly with regards to its conception, implementation and successes in the field. I feel that the NY Times article does a better job at balancing the two sides, but speaking as an aspiring anthropologist, I can say that for many this program shakes anthropologists and our discipline to the very core.

The benefits of this program are very real and in many cases offer benefits to all parties involved (research for the anthropologists, an alternative to armed force for the military and some cultural understanding for the Iraqis or Afghanis). The problems, unfortunately, are not so easy to see and the benefits will easily overshadow them. Anthropology, for the most part, has come to terms with its history and fundamental association to colonialism. As a result the field walks on a very thin and nebulous ethical boundary. I believe that by applying anthropological techniques to military operations we tread far from an acceptable level of ethical deviance. Regardless of the non-violent success stories told and the military's claims that all information will be public, the ethical use and disclosure of research in the field cannot be assured. The military is using anthropologists to disassemble the enemy so that they might more efficiently establish authority and achieve victory. I am wary of saying that anthropologists are being used, for any well-trained anthropologist will see the dangers of such work, yet they do so anyway. Whatever the case, anthropologists in the combat field are part of a larger cultural domination and overrunning. It is clear that we meant not simply to liberate Iraq from a dictator but to instill US notions of government and lifestyle within Iraqi life. The connections to colonial anthropology which, simply put, meant to understand the savage, not for the sake of the savage or the scholar but for the empire. I personally agree with Professor Gonzales that anthropologists who are involved are naively interpreting the military's goals and unethically applying the discipline to violent armed struggle.

An official American Anthropological Association (AAA) statement takes no definite stance, stating that the situation offers benefits and dangers, and that instead of being absolute in a stance we should instead assure that the most ethical practices triumph and that much much care be taken. However, this seems to come across (in the media, for what its worth) as another example of scholars keeping their discipline sacred and in the ivory tower.

Personally, I think that anthropology has come a long way from its colonial legacy and that modern anthropological thought has absolutely no place in a realm where social science can be subverted, indeed perverted, by military powers. This is a very dangerous line to tread and anthropologists ought not to go there. Here I see that the military is so close to seeing that its run out of options and is not as powerful as it thinks. But manages to find a way to ride to victory on the backs of cultural anthropologists who can provide an easily abused link for resolving conflict; cultural understanding. Perhaps in arrogance I say that anthropology has a lot of power, especially in an increasingly global world. Ought we to associate this power with military force? No.

Genocide, National Responsibility and Revisionists.

Discussion in my course on museum studies in the past several weeks has made me ashamed to live in the United States. We get an interesting perspective in the course from time because we have a student from Germany who occasionally makes insightful comments about US museum and ways they differ from the ones in her home country. She mentioned, in an off hand manner perhaps, about her surprise that US history or cultural museums never mentioned the "genocide." Anthropologists don't like this term because it has such harsh and evil connotations that it creates one-side support in situations that are far more complex. The US genocide this student refers to is, of course, what we could call "the discovery of the Americas" or "the foundation of our country;" something celebrated. Yet the fact that this continent was "discovered" long before Europeans arrived and the fact that the foundation of success of the United States relied heavily on the eradication of the indigenous inhabitants is indeed often left out of our national conscience.

Another topic that invoke similar feelings, which I will soon explain, was about the proposed Smithsonian exhibit on WWII and the atomic bombing of Japan that featured the Enola Gaye. This exhibit was eventually abandoned because of outcries from all angles of the spectrum. Veterans, peace-niks and the Japanese wanted to see a critical eye turned towards atomic weapons in this exhibit. Just as many veterans and US politicians however didn't want to see such an iconic artifact of US history belittled and shown as a bringer of evil. They accused the museum of being "revisionists," liberal scholars who wish to sully the good name of "America" (Need I mention again the foundation of the nation?). With the controversy flying left and right around the exhibit and a great fear of the Smithsonian losing federal money, the exhibit was abandoned.

Here are two examples of how the United States has managed to weasel its way out of taking responsibility for questionable periods in its history. National museums, notably in Germany (which hasn't hidden from the Holocaust legacy), create museums and exhibits devoted to things like "genocide." Meanwhile the US, which walks around with its head held high singing its own praises about being the protector of liberty, freedom an democracy, seems to live in a state of blissful ignorance of its own past. This nation has enjoyed so much power and influence (and lack of regulation) that it hasn't had to own up to its past. If either of the topics discussed above had made it into museums in their rawest forms, the controversy would be incredible but it would force the nation to deal with these topics. We may not like what happened in the past. We may want to respect that many young people have loved this nation so much that they fight for it, but we cannot forget that in fighting not only our US lives lost, but so are millions of others, many hundreds of thousands in mere seconds even. War is an interesting occurrence that at once calls for celebration and criticism. And it is not right to give one preference over the other for fear of getting "America" down. We don't have to visit the museums or feel good about them being there, but they should exist as reminders so that we no longer walk unaware and jaded in a world where we are so quick to judge other cultures and nations of their deeds.

There are many parallels between acts of violence throughout the history. The "American Genocide," September 11th, The Holocaust, The Crusades, Pearl Harbor, Japanese internment, the dropping of the Atomic Bomb, they're all on the same level as far as I'm concerned. Horrendous acts of violence that, despite their contested neccessity, unprovoked-ness, or senselessness, resulted in massive loss of life. Just note, for a second, that the Holocaust, The Crusades, Pearl Harbor and September 11th have all resulted in the perpetrator/s to be "dealt with" or at least to take responsibility for and commit such acts to national memory. Shouldn't we?