Ethnographic Perspectives on Laxyuup Gitxaala

The following is a paper I presented at the American Anthropological Association annual meeting in Montreal. November 2011.

---

The question is easy: What are the changes undergone in archaeology under a collaborative setting, and why is it worth it? Experience speaks for itself in the moment, but the following is a representation of the transformation undergone in archaeology as experiences across time and space collide in the field.

---

Part I: Katrena Leslie
Here is Katrena Leslie, our platform upon which we moved and lived across the water in the Gitxaala territory. And the boat floats, it bobs up and down, it rolls and leans. The people on board do as well, some tossed more violently than they expect, others lulled to sleep, and a few lulled to sickness. But Katrena Leslie is not inert, she is not some welded piece of steel propelled by diesel. She takes on as many roles are there are persons on board. She is a table around which planning and meals are shared at once. She is a location, central and mobile, pivotal in her role as mediator between perspectives and goals. And she is our guide, her belly full, like a well-packed backpack, of tools and data, books and food. And with her at our sides we were able to move through the territory, finding and visiting and experiencing disparate sites of knowledge with her as our constant. Katrena Leslie, she helped us see, from top to bottom, accumulated ways of knowing, oral histories beneath the ground, and caked on all our faces, evidence of having been and having done, and having seen.

---

Part II: Lach Klan

So now we start moving across the territory. We begin as I did in Lach Klan, the village, the central home of the Gitxaala First Nation. And we, all of us involved, have been here, walked upon the anthropogenic deposits upon which the houses of our hosts and friends sit and have sat for many years. The island landscape is the space we navigate, but no matter how far we wander in kilometres and miles, we are never far from the village. Though physically inhabiting distinct geographic space, we are transported, in moments, far from the active practice of archaeology. The flat leaves of devil’s club are reminders, opaque windows through which the beam of the total station travels in space back to the people who call this home. The leaves and bushes and fallen trees were reminders of our purpose, to supplement a way of knowing. In these moments and otheres we carried Gitxaala in our pockets, as the global positioning handhelds might well have been called Gitxaala Position Systems. Anthropology and Gitxaala are old acquaintances, but now become more and more colleagues as their components are at once and always moving and contributing to what makes up the Laxyuup Gtixaala.

---

Part III: Mapping

And we mapped, oh how we mapped. Got it. Yep. Got it. Face the prism toward me. Level? Let’s shoot in the next station. And so on across the sites.

Each laser beam from the total station a vision, each vision a point. The maps are a living, yawning thing, moving point to point across a landscape big or small. I learned on a skiff one evening from my friend Greg, that the people used to navigate their ocean routes moving point to point. Each point a point of reference. And so it is with topography, each point a way of visiting and remembering a place. And each map is a record of visiting, a physical (or digital) memory of a place, and a reference for the future. To map, for us, is to situate ourselves. Like a spider we stretch a web across a landscape, each point drawing us closer and closer to an understanding. Manufacturing an artifcatual world, a base upon which to live our work.

---

Part IV: Practice

Let’s move to the real meat of it now. The practice of archaeology. The object of study, the culture area, the regional specialization. Archaeology takes place upon the map, upon the land, upon the anthropogenic evidence of time immemorial. Each percussion core, each ping an intrusion into the past. Archaeologists are time travelers, which is not to be cliché, but rather literal. Far from fiction, the practicing archaeologist, with each scrape of a trowel, passes from the present into the past and back again. It is the hermeneutic. It is the empirical.

But to examine what is empirical, is to get at that experience of discovery, of finding and unearthing. In examining the empirical in collaborative archaeology I find we are never confined solely to a square. We are never so myopic as to see only the silt in the screen. Nor are our practices so confined. Far from specialized we are mappers, and collectors, we are excavators and screeners, we are finders and fishers, explorers in residence, we are the makers of fires and pies. We are the screen tossers and the joke tellers. And some of us are less graceful than others. We are all these things at once, amalgamations, characters inhabiting a plot we write ourselves.

---

Part V: Fishing

What better after a long day of swallowing flies than a fresh-boiled crab? Nothing. Except maybe halibut stew. And so we come to fishing. We come to the anecdotal, the fantastical stories of halibuts reeled in by hand. The personal feats of touching live crabs. The unsure looks of a man tasting urchin goo for the first time. Fishing, and stories about fishing, occupied a primary space alongside Katrena Leslie. Indeed it enveloped us from all angles. Each return to the kitchen was the beginning of a rising tide of fishing stories. And once again, as water seeps through the stones of a fish trap, the fishing stories permeate our lives and experience. We are transported in time, suddenly glimpsing and embodying bits of practices ancient. Five more minutes of five thousand years of history played out on Katrena’s decks and with our hands. Not ethnoarchaeology, not experimental archaeology, the collaborative is experiential archaeology. Katrena hosted the sea creatures upon her deck and there we mingled, learning names and gaining insight into character. Names and knowledges we’d carry with us into the excavation units, into the auger’s bucket and into the corer’s tube.

---

Part VI: Midden

Fish eaten and bones discarded. Shells picked clean and crushed underfoot. Such is the creation of midden. Midden, the heap upon heap of heaping helpings of human being. The excavation units come alive with it. Shells pouring out of the walls and clacking as they hit the ground. But the fishing allows a new vision. The shells, the shapes, the hues, the sizes are all suddenly familiar. They are not discard but living and slimy and revealing ways of life that have come and gone and stayed. Surely we cannot uncover a salmon bone without tasting tasty sockeye. Same goes for urchins. And as our vision becomes embodied in our tongues, so too does it become refined. Slowly, like eyes adjusting to the dark, a collaborative vision is born in archaeological practice.

---

Part VII: Abalone

Enter abalone, iridescent, shimmering and shapely. The shell of value, the shell of controversy. The shell now supplementing understandings of statistical significance. Abalone lives deep in the archaeological and Gitxaala imagination. It crawls upon the wet rocks and hides. But there are those with vision good enough to see. They bring experience, they bring memory and practice and a pinch of good luck to these places normally unseen. In our case the underground. Each fragment of shell that emerged from Ks’waan was another piece of evidence tying together the labour of archaeology, the land we worked on and the fishing practiced. EU NS1 filled to the brim with abalone shells, overflowing and soon filling the house basin. Work slowed and was never the same. We saw, we learned, we experienced and we found. Surely such experience cannot be insignificant.

---

Part VIII: Transformation

Archaeology has undergone transformation in Laxyuup Gitxaala. Like salmon running we’ve been pooled and trapped behind the stone walls of an archaeological feature. The Gitxaala have created the world, shaped it and know it intimately. In collaboration we come to inhabit it, swim around and move from border to border. When the tide rises we can drift out and away and come back again. When the tide is out all we know is intersection between ourselves and others. The stories told in collective gatherings, around shared meals follow us into the field where they articulate with the same landscape we ourselves interact with.

And all this upon the platform. The platform its own feature upon which experience is free to transcend the person, the work and the memory.

---

My thanks to the Gitxaala Nation for allowing us to visit and work in their traditional, unceded territory. This research made possible by Charles Menzies and the Laxyuup Gitxaala 2011 summer team: Greg, Teddy, Russ, Naomi, Kenzie, Kisha and Andrew. Thank you all for your participation and a fun summer.

Arriving

Welcome to the Northwest, where eagles sing and scream, where sea planes soar over harbors and the greenest greens you've ever seen tower over towns. 

I've arrived here for fieldwork. To head out into remoteness, to dig, to talk and to think. This thing we do, anthropologists, this thing called research is an interesting place to visit. Apart and strange, outside the university the researcher is a baffling presence; hailing from far away places, transient, lonely, with vague purposes even remoter.

Arrival is process, one of making place, making a place. All beginnings are arrivals.Arrival is the beginning of the creation of memories. Memories that come to construct the familiar.

Arrival is experience. Touch and feel and sense; new smells of ocean and the sounds of eagles flapping. Seeing, becoming part of landscape by contributing to it, by taking it in, literally embodying. Arrival is moving and pausing. 

I've arrived here, in the Northwest, ready again to set out anew. To the ocean, to floating scapes of sea and land and group. I'm here to see how archaeology arrives, by boat and plane and skiff. By tool and question and boot. By poetic narrative, perhaps. Tonight archaeology arrives and tomorrow it stays and the day after it leaves again. My job is to see and experience and write it.

Listen:

On the Future of Anthropology

Almost three and a half years ago I wrote an entry on this very blog describing my thoughts on the value of anthropology in the future. This entry, On the Future and Anthropology, is one of the biggest sources of traffic to my blog. Evidently many people around the world search for the terms future and anthropology.

Since then the character of the blog has changed nearly as much as the thoughts and experiences inside me. And I feel obligated to offer some updates with regards to the role and future of anthropology.

My feelings on the state of the world and the values that anthropology has to offer have not changed significantly. Anthropology has precisely the nuanced, worldly perspectives which can give important meaning and insight into contentious issues of human rights, violent conflict, capitalist ethics and the like. The future and anthropology are almost certainly well suited for each other.

However, the future of anthropology is far less certain. I've now been a student of anthropology for nearly six academic years and this past year has made something abundantly clear to me: anthropology spends its days around the world learning things, but sleeps with its head in its ass.

Since the original post I've entered a graduate program and anthropology and I am undergoing the academic and professional training of its future practitioners. I have found that as graduate students we are not taught how to write, how to teach, how to engage, how to listen or even how to speak. We are instead taught how to become effective and tactical academics, working to succeed in an academic system that almost any professor will say is broken.

As students, we learn to write for publication and not for an audience. We learn that presentations are venues to place information in front of an audience, instead of presenting it to them. We learn that teaching is a form of employment and a hassle conflicting with what our truer academic goals should be. And we take these lessons and apply them in classrooms full of young undergraduate students. And we take these lessons and apply them to our own classrooms full of our peers. And we take these lessons to anyone we know who might, for a minute, entertain a masturbatory exposition on the theoretical context of our research.

This is only one experience and it is not intended to reflect on the abilities and motives of my colleagues, professors or mentors. It is also likely that other departments better emphasize the possibilities of contribution in anthropology, or at the very least, the encouragement of innovation. However, I must at once place blame on the individuals as well as the structures. We are agents, each day making decisions to contribute, create or re-create.

Professional anthropologists complain of the stigma attached to writing for popular audiences, but do not confront it. They sit bored to tears in graduate seminars listening to bright students drone on illustrating an astounding ability to retain and comprehend (without contributing to knowledge), but they do not change the format. They endlessly pour over poorly written term papers, but do not teach writing.

They complain and wait for tenure honestly, I think, expecting to change the system when they have the clout. But to change the system whilst sitting atop its structure would place careers and standings in jeopardy. Change will not come from the top, it will not come in time.

There are glimmers of hope, those individuals who would demand that we find a voice before all else. And it is precisely a voice that anthropology needs to find. Not a unified voice necessarily, but one that is spoken clearly. Not an applied voice necessarily, but one that engages. Not a popular voice necessarily, but one that appreciates an audience.

As a musician, an artist and, perhaps, a scholar, I have come to recognize the role that performance plays in every day of life. Writing a term paper is a performance. Writing a journal article is a performance. Presenting a paper is a performance. Teaching is a performance. Celebrating with colleagues is a performance.

Performances do not need to be perfect. In fact, it is the imperfections which make them lively and real. Their value lies in creating a shared space of communication, translation, listening and reflection; what have I heard and seen, what have I learned and taught, what have I created and how have I shared it?

Anthropology needs to learn to perform instead of present. To create instead of write. To engage instead of teach. As students we should demand a change in vocabulary and expectations to follow. If anthropology can do these things, if we can do these things, then the discipline will have a bright future. If we cannot, then anthropology might as well stay where it is.

Regarding Dog Shit

Tee Vee

A Rant of One Who Would Destroy America

Listen,

No really, listen:

You know how Glenn Beck talks about liberal leftists destroying America. This is what one really sounds like. SPOILER ALERT: I am an elitist and cynical, lefty hippie.

I seems that maybe Obama charmed his way to the White House following in the steps of George W. Bush. The biggest difference? Obama was legitimately elected, and no one wanted to have a beer with him; they just hoped that he would bring some progressive action to the presidency.

Sure it's too early to judge him as a president but it's not looking good. Take something like healthcare, quality and affordable healthcare. It seems he would let his own party not only butcher the concept of a public option into some meaningless, impotent moderate compromise, but he would also watch members of his own party threaten to block the bill the even coming to a vote. If I believed in a god, I would invoke its name and beg it to make Obama take a stand. I've seen nothing but pandering and inaction. If one really wants to close a secret torture center, one simply needs to close it. Instead, Obama offers nothing but waiting. Same with waging war. He continues to support the killing of human beings and recognizes an illegitimate Afghan leader. If you hate murdering humans, then simply take a courageous step, walk away and face the shame and ridicule that we fucked up. No, really. Finally, Gay rights have taken significant blows recently and Mr. Obama, who looked to be a friend of the LGBTQ community, a president who felt the need to support democrats in local elections, said nothing of the referendums on gay marriage and civil union.

We are not on good terms, him and me. His administration has been consumed of late with a debate with the standing on cable media, laying wreaths and with pandering to the right, the very people who didn't vote for him and oppose anything with his name on it. Here's how it works. Leaders lead, which means making decisions and taking actions that will get you criticism from your foes and your sell-out party members. I believed that Obama believed in what he said he believed in. So far, it seems he's on a one way street to sell-out-ville. But I am just a disgruntled liberal.

So, what of freedom and democracy and capitalism. Lies. At least in this current country. Freedom and equality are routinely denied to some at the hands of pseudo-democracy and capitalism. Listen, capitalism ensures the success of the rich and necessitates the plight of the poor. And its no mistake that the rich are married (though philandering) white men and the poor single black women. The American Dream is a fantasy that addicts the lower classes to a definition of success that demands materialism; own more stuff, be hotter stuff. But, then the middle classes need to own more stuff to out-stuff the lower class. Finally, profit, for the rich anyway, who own all the stuffs that the stuff-wanters want. This is all inherent in a system that places import upon certain types of personal wealth. Add in a side of corporate corruption and you have an exploitative invisible hand that crushes the masses while the top one percent suckle at its teat. Hello cynicism!

Democracy would suggest that these masses might have some leverage. Nope. Politicians are in the pocket of the one percent, if they themselves aren't in the one percent. Obama, or Nancy Pelosi, or Olympia Snowe might have had meager, down-home beginnings but they've arisen to such a class and success that they have no personal stake in what the public wants. The public, the masses, support a public option. Yet, at the hands of insurance lobbyists, many politicians will press the congress to produce a bill that has exactly the opposite. But surely the masses could simply vote out these corrupt leaders. Except the masses mostly believe they have to choose between the lesser of two evils and not someone who represents their interests. Independent and progressive candidates are painted as left or right wing wackos who speak their minds, express exactly what they mean and make no concessions (for shame!). This has gone on for so long that the public does not take advantage of its right to elect leaders. For once, the decisions of the public matter, their apathy declares that contemporary politics and American democracy is dying.

And now I'd like to take a moment and criticize my favorite target: the media. That mostly electronic outlet that offers only lies, sensationalism and advertising under the guise of some perverted form of journalism. All the fair and balanced television media offer nothing of value except opinion, which the majority of people take as news. And yes, I am playing the elitism card, if that card is recognizing that those with independent, critical minds are portrayed as out of touch, ivory towerists. I'm not suggesting that I have a better perspective, but simply utilizing what my perspective gives me, an ability to recognize other perspectives.

Furthermore the media dupes us with stories of celebrity drama, "reality" shows, and a fetishism of death. Routinely, stories of import to the state of American life, stories that reveal the lies of politicians and stories that give indication to the worrisome and problematic state of the world are ignored for sensationalist reporting, empty accusations and "human interest" reporting which gives us a nice fluffy feeling in our hearts. In short, we are trained to ignore politics, realist perspectives and sad stories with bad endings and trained to consume and discuss sad stories with happy endings. The substance is left, then, to comedy shows which satirize the media and offer the only sane reaction to the state of things, laughter.

Also, people in the United States are routinely denied civil and human rights by a largely Christian, exclusionary paradigm. Gays cannot marry, gays are considered inherently sinful and shameful and somehow not normal, women are paid less, women are denied agency over their own bodies, immigrants are described as insidious invaders, Muslims are labeled as terrorists, blacks, by no coincidence, wind up most hampered by the capitalist system, state legislators routinely participate in state sanctioned murder, millions are denied rights to basic healthcare and I once got a parking ticket for parking in front of my own house. It's all fucked up.

And what is the solution? The collapse of capitalism followed by a humanist overthrow of the Christian, oppressive US government by the people. Realistically, I believe this would result in the dissolution of the United States and the establishment of new territories. Now, being the ardent and hopeless pacifist that I am and do not see violence as a necessary. I believe that the disenchantment of the people and a natural collapse of capitalism will throw these United States into such an identity crises that the current form of government and economic will be unable to stand. I believe it's happening now. Increasingly the wackos on all ends of the political spectrums are the only one's making sense. Even if their values conflict with my own, I find sanity in their ferocity to accomplish something in the face of the establishment.

Now I cannot predict the result. But I do believe that the America as we know it will fall and be remade. I believe that this will come down to a clash between secularism and religiosity. But, I hope, and here comes the utopia, that a state arises that promotes (in deliberate rejection of freedom and liberty and justice) tolerance and peace and humanism for all. This final thought, the naive utopia, is the only thing that gives me much hope these days as I become increasingly maddened and anxious and cynical at the hand of my overwhelming disillusionment.

From the Death Pedestal to Philosophical Fear

In case you were out, the so-called king of pop died last Thursday. And, every day since we have been reminded that, indeed, he is still dead. No more dead than he was Thursday, certainly no less dead, but nevertheless, still dead enough. Then, I had the misfortune of tuning in CNN to get a brief of current events for work on Sunday morning only to be reminded by four, count them, four separate analysts that Jackson was dead. And (get this!), there was an autopsy. Someone died (died I tell you!) and those doctors had the audacity to try and figure out why. Finally, and I hope I read the news reports accurately, it seems that people are planning a funeral for the dead Michael Jackson.

Even this very morning it seems the only thing worthy of public consideration is that Jackson is still dead. Both CNN and MSNBC (The place for politics) are reporting this. If such thorough and reputable media organizations are reporting this, it must be true.

It seems my fears of the zombie apocalypse, at least in the case of Jackson, were, thankfully, unfounded.

In a close second and third recently, two more celebrity deaths. And fourth? That Farrah Fawcett's death was overshadowed by Jackson's.

I'm simply sick of this shit. Let's have a run down of things that actually are happening (other than the recapitulation of Jackson's death): The political situation in Iran dropped off the map as the state approached revolution. We are at war in two countries; though today marks the begining of the pull out in Iraq. The University of Illinois is under investigation for not only admitting unqualified (but well connected) students, but trading admission decisions for job placements (for underqualified candidates). As if two wars weren't enough, there is more war mongering begining to be directed at North Korea. Nevermind all the death and human suffering that never makes the news because we have become accustomed to it; that is, destitution, hunger and exploitation of the "low" classes in the US and around the world.

I think that this is becoming more than a short-sighted, anecdotal and momentary demonstration of priorities. This is an infectious and expanding attitude that will be detrimental to the social and physical state of the world. The continous expansion of celebrity obsession is more than a distraction, it is a deliberate state of ignorance. It is a conscious shrugging of the shoulders to those problems that are too depressing to be profitable. I will go as far as to say that the media storm surrounding the 2008 election, ironically, was a similar calculated means to set aside the mortal, sadistic, corrupt and depressing side of the human condition. I say that because the hoopla that peaked at the inauguration dropped off almost instantly as soon as Obama began facing the problems he campaigned about.

There are few things that I'm truly afraid of (in a philosohpical sense). One is my untimely death at the chaotic hands of an evangelical Christian children's army. Another, a new one, is the long-term effect that this new profit-hungry, mainstream, normative, omnipresent media machine is having. There will a come a point where profit will not be a strong enough forced to demand all our attention. I can only hope that the competing force, at that point, will not be self-preservation.

The National Sole

I made the mistake of watching one of the cable news channels this morning for, say, 10 minutes. In that short time I saw this video some 20 or 30 times. The president, despite regaining a pinch of respect for his puma-like reflexes, nevertheless made a fool of himself once again. He quite literally shrugged off the incident, said he couldn't understand why it would happen, but that it was the sign of a free society.

Even the attention-whores of the media caught on that this act was more than protest, but outright disrespect. It seems that the sole of the shoe especially is considered quite unclean and profane by some Muslims.

Still, its not every day that dignitaries like the US president have articles of clothing hurled in their direction. Or is it? I think the reaction today was more chuckles and less sock, I mean, shock. Apologies. I suppose I would expect no less at this point in history. It's fairly obvious these days that our president and the national image he represents are far from the reknowned reputations of yore.

Perhaps this discussion is moot, for a lame-duck can only expect a reputation as such. But, I think this is some baggage that the next administration will have to deal with. Obama will not start with a new slate, but rather some sort of corroding, eroded, malformed semblence of a slate. Obama is no Christ either, he cannot conjure up some heroic and instantaneous reconstruction.

It's going to take a while to leave the shoes of Bush behind and clear a new path.

In the Shade of Robai's House

I spent two six week periods in Kenya over the last two summers. A fair amount of my time there was spent working with and watching a woman named Robai and her family make and sell pots. This is that photo narrative:

It was after a short, but furiously-paced walk from Robai's homestead that we witnessed the first step of the potting process. No clay, no pots. Simple as that. Down one of the many red-orange Kenyan roads and to the left there was (what appeared to be) a run-off ditch. I straddled the small crevasse and watched as Robai skillfully dug into the wall and pulled out the grey and gravelly clay.


Her face stained with clay, Robai looked up for a moment while she rested. In the next instant she beamed with delight seeing my camera focused on her.

Here, Robai's family works over the clay, first beating it with an overturned hoe and then picking out the finer inclusions. Rocky bits within the clay might cause the pot to shatter while firing.


The potters work with rhythmic skill. They mold the clay into long strips and wrap them around a base to produce the shape. The coils are then smoothed with pieces of wood and plastic. When pots shatter during firing or after being buried, they sometimes fracture in ways that show the weaknesses in the coils.


In the shade of Robai's house some 13 of us sat quietly, transfixed by the magic in front of us. With great ease and skill the hands of Robai and her family worked to produce delicate and decorative vessels from the raw clay. Light fell in small patches through the fruit tree where the children played. This soft ambiance created a calm unlike any I've ever felt before. Glowing yellow light bathed the earthy pots. Robai and her co-workers muttered in soft Swahili, foreign to my ears, but nonetheless comforting; it was as if there were no language or cultural barriers.


After the pots dried slowly in Robai's house for over a week, they were to be fired. A large open kiln was constructed from dry wood purchased in town. The floor rests above the ground so that air could feed the heat of the fire. Pots were then stacked atop this floor, covered in the rest of the wood as well as dry grass and then the kiln set alight.


The smoke and heat from this kiln is intense. A cloud rose for tens, if not hundreds, of feet into the sky above. Robai tended carefully to the fire, continually adding more grass. Here she pokes her head above the thick smoke she was walking through.


An hour later the fire dies down. The heat still radiates some 20 feet from the kiln. The pots, now fire-hardened peek through from the ash of the grass. Soon they were removed one by one by Robai and her family. In a stroke of luck, all 102 pots that were made from the clay survived the firing process.


A successful firing means dancing and hugs all around. Maybe she was dancing because all the pots made it through. Maybe it was because she had finished a 3 week long process. Maybe it was because she knew she would be paid in full. Regardless, her mood raised the spirits of even the ill anthropologists.


Here, Robai (far right) and her family stand in front of their product. These fine pots were collected by the director of the project. This man loves his pots and, in a moment of unprecedented generosity, he let the students choose two pots to take with them as keepsakes.


The time I spent in the soft and mesmerizing shade of Robai's house is one of the fondest memories I have of Kenya. Surpasing the grand landscapes of the Rift Valley, the archaeological sites and the rural towns, it is the cool, damp soil behind Robai's house that is Kenya for me. It was this process that caused me, for the first time, to put down my camera (thoughts of photos drifting far from my mind) and simply sit and watch and be.

Making Pictures

Butler University Basketball
Originally uploaded by The Humanihilsocialist

I've noticed (as my interest in pursuing photojournalism grows) that photographers refer to "making" pictures. This phrase comes across the tongue in an awkward way, because I think we are often use to "taking" pictures.

Do we really take anything? I usually say that I capture things. However an image itself is a reproduction and, if it is a good one, a reproduction with an emphasis on the dramatic. Making, then, however awkward it might be, is more apt and I think is the artist's celebration of succeeding in "doing" photography.

If I put aside the words-in-quotes now, what stands? Did I take this image. Did I capture the moment and remove it from some realty? No. I produced a reproduction through which we might relive the tradition that surrounds Butler basketball.

Misanthropy, Anti-Intellectualism and the State of Things

As this academic year comes to a close in a frenzy of emotion and ideas and worries and hope, few things can prove as therapeutic as some good old fashioned dissenting (that and an hour long run without regards to pace that has left me sore and literally running from a thunderstorm).

Is it ironic to live and breath anthropology, yet abound in misanthropy? Humanity. Ur doin' it wrong! My days, of late, are bipolar swings from hope and camaraderie matched by despair and feeling lost in the deteriorating state of the world. I can't handle the media any longer. From the attitudes towards the church that was raided to the fact that the 2008 campaign is focusing on a man, Wright, who has absolutely nothing to do with anything. Time's 100 came out recently. Is it any surprise that Brad Pit and Angelina Jolie appear on the list alongside the Dali Lama? Is it any wonder that TV and movie celebrities appear on the "Heroes and Pioneers" list and that there is a section devoted to artists and entertainers? Not to say that art and music aren't important things in life, but that we attribute equal levels of influence to Barak Obama, George W. Bush, Lorne Michaels and Bruce Springstien boggles my mind.

Maybe I read too much into these things. But that's what anthropologists do, we treat the media and seemingly insignificant and harmless things as valid artifacts, symbols dependent on hegemonic systems of understanding and value. With the unrelenting presence of mass media and communication it is no surprise that Lorne Michaels wields as much influence if not more than, say, Vladimir Putin. But seeing that these two men operate within (what I would consider) completely separate spheres of reality, I am worried that we form our view of the world with shady boundaries between what we see on TV and what is going on abroad.

Separation of church and state (HA!)? Let's try separation of TV and reality first.

Anthropologists have interesting perspectives, a perspective that seems strangely lost on many (for it is not difficult to obtain). We are no better than anyone else; there are systems of belief and value that I cannot escape which influence how despondent I come off from day to day. However, what I witness from many of my peers all around is saddening.

Anti-intellectualism is very real. This is not an attack on "stupid" people or religious minded folk. Educations vary widely across the nation and I have no problem with religion and faith so long as it is accompanied with as little arrogance as possible. No, this is an attack on actions. Everyday people refuse to open their minds even an inch to explore something new. We are so entrenched in what is American and Moral and Traditional that we are closed to expansion. Now, things that are new (and often confusing) are not seen as opportunities to learn and understand (were they ever?) but are simply seen as threats to our very existence and being. Everyday people refuse to make up their own minds and instead heed the calls of TV anchors, "analysts" and rich celebrities.

I'm having difficulties communicating exactly what I mean; perhaps I have grown weary from my wild run. I'll just say how I came to think of this misanthropy. As I consider my future in archaeology, I must look to graduate school. Much of my looking is dependent on the fact that I want to leave the Midwest. Climate and landscape have driven me to the breaking point. My research into archaeological theory has shown me that archaeology in the US, as with all "American" things, seems to operate in a sort of vacuum. I had an epiphany. I need to get the hell out of this country and work with academics abroad. I am by no means naive and have traveled abroad for brief and extended periods, but leaving the country for grad school brings me to another level.

I have joked about Canada and fleeing there like the hippies of yore, driven out by a draft that never came to be for our generation. But, in my epiphany, Canada became a logical idea. The type of archaeology I want to study is found in this geographic location. This option is very much on the table and appeals to me.

Then I wondered if I really am being driven out. Certainly, my generation shares many things with the flower children of the 60s and 70s. Indeed, I am positive that we are entrenched in the same Cold War ideology. We've got the war, we've got the injustice and we've got the idiots in Washington. We're missing the draft. But, I am realizing now (having found myself in many uncomfortable spots like the Creationist Museum in Kentucky) that I am not welcome in the country.

This world we have created within the United States, one driven by greed and money and religion and self-riteousness has pushed me too far. Here I am, a young man with a great group of friends and a wonderful supportive family (and a hell of a lot of potential?), distrusting humanity. It's not right. Whilst navigating our world as one does nowadays through Facebook and CNN and "the tubes" I am angered and frustrated.

I see hope though, despite my dismal outlooks presented here, deep down inside of me I am an optimist, a humanist that knows there's potential. My hope now is that I can find my higher higher education abroad and flourish in an environment that embraces intellectualism and embraces the opportunities and challenges of the world today.

Will I come back? What will the climate of US philosophy look like in 10 years? Am I abandoning my country in its time of need? I'm not sure. Will I become another statistic of brain drain? I don't know. I probably won't find a way to change the world, I just hope that I will be able to find a place in it.

Acting Out

Hope and change has been the slogan of this political year. Unfortunately, politics has inspired little hope and has instead planted seeds of despondency that the United States is on a one way path to epic failure. All aboard the fail boat!

The immigration debate has inspired such despondency within me of late. It was highlighted by a small news story that slipped under the radar recently. Absolut Vodka ran an ad campaign in Mexico in which (in an attempt to celebrate Mexican heritage) it ran the slogan “In an Absolut World” over an image of 19^th century North American, where all the territory west of the Rocky Mountains was Mexico. Outrage arose, not from within Mexico, but rather from several conservative groups and journalists in the United States that called for a boycott of the brand. Absolut apologized for its campaign and stopped running the ads; A politically correct, profit minded and truly “American” response.

This reaction is representative of the deteriorating status of Mexicans and US/Mexico relations in light of the immigration debate. All politicians are dealing with the influx of illegal immigrants into this country, but the kind of rhetoric and ideas that are being thrown around reveal a dehumanizing of Mexicans.

In this debate Mexicans and Hispanic immigrants coming from the south are referred to as problems and often as “illegals.” Some might argue that terminology is harmless, but I think otherwise. Referring to fellow human beings in such negative ways creates immediate prejudice and devaluing. As a result the identity we project on Hispanic immigrants is one centered on notions of rejection, objectification and immorality. We refer to them, not as people, but rather as amorphous entities that exist in the realm of illegality and encroachment.

The discourse of solution is not a positive one. Illegal immigration (and the millions are human beings associated with it) is referred to as a problem that needs to be rectified. Immigrants are objectified and treated as commodities as we decide their worth in our economy and culture, or as we decide which ones to ship back and how to do so. There is not talk of moving forward, only of creating stasis by cutting off the routes and purging our country of these dirty, illegal and problematic bodies that are corrupting true American values.

Stephen Colbert joked with Mike Huckabee about building a catapult along the border to fire illegals back into Mexico. The idea seems ridiculous, but his satire is not far off. It highlights the dehumanization of Hispanic immigrants. Not only are their identities essentialized to that of “Mexican” but they are considered inherently illegitimate. Whether we agree with it or not, the immigration debate has stolen the status of equality from Hispanic immigrants. We are living in a world where “freedom and justice for all” is a farce and instead, human status is determined by economic worth and genealogy.

To be Freudian for a moment, can we examine the illegal immigration debate, and responses like those to the Absolut ad, as an acting-out of some deep seated problem? I think we can. The crisis we are facing here is not one of population, jobs, culture or globalization. No, what we are facing is an identity crisis of a national sort.

We are facing many problems as a nation, namely our economy and our political reputation. As the European Union and China grow stronger our role as super-power is being contested. We are accused of anti-intellectualism. Culturally we are divided over gay marriage, abortion, religion and wealth. Every day I see hopeless efforts to establish and secure the idea of “America” and a greater number of individuals and ideas that contest such an identity at fundamental levels.

The role of the United States and our future is uncertain and possibly quite bleak. As a result we are acting out and building fences on our borders to keep out those seeking better lives. As we become ever so deeply involved in contentious conflict in the Middle East, we are troubled and take our frustration out on those illegals that indisputably have broken the law and assailed our “American” values.

This debate is not about immigrants, they will continue to come and there’s nothing we can do about it. If we were a healthy nation, we would have confidence that our economics and culture would adjust accordingly. What I see through examples like that of the Absolut campaign, is that these crises we face are more likely unhealthy and counterproductive projections of our own cultural and identity crises.

We are freefalling downward into a pit of cultural crisis and shutdown. We are so insecure with who we are a nation that we are threatened by the Spanish language. Eventually, we will end our descent and hit rock bottom. We will be confronted with tumultuous and violent conflict as we run out things to cover our problems. Shall we focus of catapulting illegals back to Mexico? Shall we continue to obsess ourselves with the lives of celebrities? Shall we fill the voids of our political lives with debates over tiny and insignificant questions and comment? Or, shall we being to look deeper and find those bugs and irks deep within our cultural being and face our problems and the world’s problems head on?

I have not yet completely resigned myself to the bleak outlook I have defined here. I still have confidence that what we need is simple change on our own parts. Instead of breeding dogma, we need to breed understanding. I hope that one day we will be known as the generation of understanding that rose to the great challenges we are facing now and moved forward.

The Death Pedestal

My mind has been racked with a new capacity and has little time to dawdle on those seemingly meaningless nothings that prove so though provoking when we step back.

I had been every so slightly perturbed of late and I was struck today with the reason for it. No its not politics or the economy, though those are surely troubling things. Nay, it was one of the things I detest and fail to understand, celebrity news. It was this evening upon hearing of and seeing the reaction to the death of Heath Ledger that my mind clicked into gear.

Facebook is becoming prevalent in many ways and if used critically can offer broad insight into small networks. I say that to say this: I counted no less than 12 facebook related statuses that mentioned and mourned the death of this actor. To this I had a series of responses. First: This has no bearing on me. Second: Its caused a media storm and is already provoking public debate (People care.). Third: Am I emotionally dead so as not to be affected by a sudden death of a talented actor? Finally: No, I am not emotionally dead, perhaps (and forgive the vanity), perhaps just far more broad minded.

Death is no stranger to the human race; people die daily, hourly, even minutely. Old people die, rich people die, young people die, poor people die, babies die, fat, thin, black and white. This makes death no less tragic on individual and situation bases, but I doubt that so many know Heath so well as to truly feel sorrow. Still, on daily news coverage I see reports of shooting and death. And I say, "this happens all the time, why does it make news?" Perhaps a better question would be why do certain deaths make news? The media and the general population seem to pick and chose which deaths matter most and such choices are often fleeting and trivialize a deeply saddening occurrence.

Celebrity news and gossip is perhaps the most perverted sort. People spend much of their time and sometimes even lives to being completely in the know about, ultimately, meaningless people. (I use meaningless not to downplay success and influence in certain spheres but rather to question their being arbitrarily "made" as significant.) People even become significantly insignificant from studying insignificant people. (Have fun with that one!) I see Britney Spears on covers of magazines that have no qualms of exploiting her downfalls. I hear people feeling sorry for her. But should we seek out the miserable and mourn death, or celebrate that the reason we seek out exciting news of death and misery is because of the large absence of it in our daily lives? Perhaps it makes us feel human and gives a sense of community. But have we gone so astray as people that, in order to feel human community, we must seek out the terrible in the lives of the insignificant?

Heath's death is no less sad and tragic and sudden to me, but merely put in perspective with the millions of other, equally as affecting, deaths. I mean not that the world will be the same without him or that individuals will miss his presence. It is the act of placing, not only death, but certain "elite" deaths on a pedestal to be mourned and become topics of debate and conversation that I disagree with and hope to challenge.

Over-Estimation of Biomedicine

One of the biggest things that has shown me that capitalism is failing is the health care system. But, just today, I thought that this may be just one of several possible issues. Obviously the current state of political affairs and capitalism have led to corruption, bureaucracy and profit motives to the bloating of the health care system into a disgustingly slobbery and ineffective entity. However, like every issue it is not always so simple. Indeed, I think that the failings of our health care system come down to (surprise surprise) cultural misunderstanding and lack of perspective.

I was at the county health department today with some refugee children to get vaccines. As simple as this task should be, it ended up being much more complicated because the nurses could not simply give the shots but needed signed letters of consent from each parent to allow the administering of this sort of care. The nurse said it was for legal reasons. Beyond corruption and bureaucracy, our health care system is seeing skyrocketing prices of care due to frivolous law suits brought against doctors and hospitals. This is why to administer simple vaccines the health department must cover its ass to a ridiculous extent with useless forms, raise costs to cover lawsuit settlements and often refuse care from many who are unable to afford care or produce necessary approval. It was nearly impossible to translate documents, track down parents, and once again pull the children out of school to get the forms that the department wanted. The 4 children I had brought were essentially denied care.

Cultural misunderstanding is the source of these lawsuits that are plaguing the health care system. If there's one thing that I have learned studying anthropology, it is that however much sense our cultural ways make, there are many more out there and some put our ways to shame. Our health care system focuses on a biomedical tradition. Indeed, alternate healing forms are not covered under federal and private programs. By biomedicine, I refer to those practices that are seen as common sense healing, antibiotics, viral vaccines, surgery etc. This is just one of many healing traditions that are found throughout the world. In truth, biomedicine is incredibly effective, though it should not assume the all-powerful role that it is achieving. Like any healing system, biomedicine is not 100% effective. Many have found peace and healing in treatments like acupuncture, meditation and religious healing where biomedicine has failed.

The problem arises in a misunderstanding of the role biomedicine has in the world. It is one of many systems none of which are completely effective and fail-proof. Most assume that biomedicine, given is foundation in "objective" science, is the most developed and logical treatments. It is accepted by many as the only way to heal. If one has an illness, one can go to a doctor and find a diagnoses and get treatment and it will be successful. When this fails malpractice suits are brought; every minute detail of treatment is analyzed to find THE error that caused harm or death. Perhaps biomedicine's biggest failing is the human element; no doctor can be perfect. But we must not forget that it is just one of many systems and its other failings may just be the limits of "objective" science. If we understand this, then we cannot blame doctors and bring lawsuits against the system, for its imperfections and limitations are inherent and are the risk we, and every other human in the world, takes when seeking healing from whatever source. Lawsuits are pointless and certainly do more harm that good. If indeed they console the hearts of grieving families, their consolation would be better found in an understanding of the cultural aspects of healing, that no single form (especially biomedicine) can offer pure healing. We must accept it as part of our world that people will die, sometimes prematurely, sometimes when it seems that so much more could have been done.

I now realize the true intricacies of the problems of the world. I see many economic and political issues, and many cultural issues. This observation at the county health clinic has shown me that the two are likely to be highly intertwined. Ah, the intricacies of the world!

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?

Sweet Caroline...Kennedy? Really?

I've already expressed my disgust for television and the culture that goes along with it. Sadly, I was reminded again today why I find myself shaking my head when I catch snippets of programs.

I was watching the local news, which is depressing in its own right, but directly following the newscast was Entertainment Tonight. This show represents a lot of what's wrong with the world today. Intimate details of largely inconsequential people are shared and followed and analyzed by "experts" and (this is what amazes me most) millions tune in. For instance, I learned that some male celebritie's twins are suffering from an overdose of some anticoagulant and that one of the Olsen girls has a kidney infection and finally that Neil Diamond wrote the song "Sweet Caroline" inspired by images of Caroline Kennedy. You know, I feel that this stuff is really important. That the lives of people who make millions of dollars for acting in poorly written movies are very important and should influence, if not inspire, my own actions. Then I snap back to reality and realize that these people are living a life of luxury for doing absolutely nothing and the only contribution they make to humanity is occasional misguided and over-publicized donations to this or that charity.

Perhaps my point can be better made in an examination of the writer's strike. This strike is gaining huge amounts of media coverage, indeed I've seen a segment about the strike every time I turn on CNN or read headlines. I've read about the great impact this will have on television and that soon our shows will cease to be written and re-run anarchy will ensue and the minds of so many will be left misguided and conversation-less with no new episodes of Grey's Anatomy or the Daily Show to discuss the next day. When was the last time a "regular" labor union strike go so much attention? When was the last time that the impact of labor union strikes were considered in terms of workers rights and the struggle of the working class instead of the impact on lives of luxury and petty entertainment? I ask these questions not to imply that TV and entertainment shouldn't exist, but rather to illustrate our lost our society is, how obsessed we've become with false worlds that are created in the minds of writers and controlled by reality show staffs. Actual realities are ignored and replaced with ratings-wielding realities.

I call my writing pessimistic and depressing. A friend, however, described it as "...being honest." I mean not to upset people, but being cynical towards daily life is the only perspective that makes sense to me. Clearly, the majority of people who may or may not be depressed or angered by my opinions are just choosing not to evaluate what's really going on. We've managed to put social problems to the backs of our minds and experience our world relative to the technological and media-centered world that is created on televisions. It upsets me to an extent that I cannot have conversations with people without being accused of being too serious or pessimistic. My view of life and world is largely optimistic, an optimism derived from critical evaluation of the world that is falling apart around us. I see a lot of problems, and I see the biggest influences on the lives of people choosing to ignore these problems because they don't sell and make people feel fuzzy inside. I know though, that these problems cannot be ignored, and I am finding that there are more people out there like me (not neccessarily of the same opinion but same philosophies and methodologies for looking at the world). I know that the future will be hard to swallow but that humans will triumph and learn to deal with social and cultural problems.

I have to remind myself of this quite often during the day as my pessimisms and cynicisms are often brought to the fore by the way society functions today. I'm really not as evil and all hating as I seem, I promise.

Fluidity, Humanity and Hope.

What does the future hold? Where do I see myself in 10-20 years? What is going to play the biggest role in the lives of humankind? These are hard questions, but I can up with only one answer; the humanities. In our shrinking world it is not science, medicine or business that will save us from ourselves. Not to say that these are not noble goals. Science is the hallmark of logic in thinking, something that will hopefully overcome in the minds of many people in this country. Medicine, while problematic at some levels, has only good intentions to keep people healthy. Business, I am not able to see how it is vital, but I'm sure that it plays a role in the organic mesh that is the world.

However, the humanities will be the most important aspect of our futures. In 10-20 years I see myself working as an anthropologist, teaching at a university, making anthropology and social science more accessible to all people, to begin to incorporate its most helpful insights into the minds of all people. I will provide opportunities to think outside the box, cross disciplinary lines and incorporate critical thinking and reflexivity into all aspects of life.

I want to show people that reliance on science as an alternate to religion will only result in bad things. Technology cannot save us, it cannot incorporate itself into the most fundamental levels of humanity and open our eyes. Science, technology, the internet; it creates an illusion of people being closer to each other with connections made with the touch of a button. In reality, it is bringing us father apart. We've created a world where it is possible to live one's life completely on the internet, leaving the house is not neccessary. Indeed, networks like second life allow an individual to create another state of existence, one separate from true human contact. Science encourages us to forget about interactions and problems, and to simply wait until the new ideas comes along that will solve whatever problem there is. Desertification you say? Science will come up with something to solve that. Drying up of oil? Science will create alternate fuel sources, until then we'll just do like always. Developments in technology and scientific understandings of the earth will be important, but they should be the sole idea considered in the "future."

I want to make people critical of medicine, consider the impacts of the biomedical tradition. Consider different forms of healing, forms that often have comparable success rates as biomedicine. Consider how the idea of illness and health varies across the world. The biggest worry I have about relying on medicine is that we will attempt to cure all illness and disease, perhaps with hopes of conquering death. People die for a reason, not to teach a lesson or set an example, not as punishment. Natural evolutionary processes require death. I can't help but wonder if by finding cures to disease after disease we create a population that is prone to illness, where sickly genes can defy the laws of natural selection and create a humanity that must live in hypoallergenic bubbles with weekly immunizations. It is ironic that the more germ-conscious and afraid of this disease and that one, the more we limit exposure to natural elements (no matter how discomforting they might be) that we will breed super-bugs that are resistant to the many ways we attempt to kill them. What will the population of the earth look like in 100 years if we cure cancer and heart disease, problems that have been unable to hamper massive population expansion? What far reaches of the earth will we marginalize people to to make room for people living to be 120, 150?, years old?

I want people to question the position of the US in the future. Capitalism will very soon be on its way out as we see how sick and problematic Adam Smith's capitalism really is. In the future a degree in business will be the equivalent to holding on to a dying tradition.

I want people to think critically, as I do here on this blog. I want people to take a step back and evaluate both the extremely good and the extremely bad to make as well rounded as an understanding as possible. This hope lies in strong support of the humanities, the social sciences, English, international studies, the liberal and fine arts. I want people to think of the world as a fluid place where people drift hour by hour from one role to another, to one lifestyle to another, not as a world where we are bound by cultures and vocations. Specialization will inevitably occur, but this does not mean shutting oneself out from interdisciplinary influences. Fluidity, humanity and hope will be the mantra to consider. With a grounding the humanities we can incorporate many ideas and disciplines, while accepting nothing as doctrine, nothing as universal truth. We will be able to weed out the goods and bads that are hidden within all ideas and ways of acting. The Humanities is where our future lies, it is where my future lies and, quite frankly, I think it is our only hope.

Prime Time Trivialization

I don't watch too much TV, the occasional drama or documentary, but certainly not regularly. Today, though, I happened to walk into the room where the TV was on and saw a commercial for an upcoming episode of "Deal or No Deal." What can we expect from modern US television? Its either biased political news, mind-numbing perversions of the lives of idiots and fame-mongers or game shows. The news and reality TV are problematic in their own rights but are mere by-products of a sick, failing culture. This particular game show ad caught my attention because they were giving away, not 1 million, not 5 million, not even 10 million, the prize was 100 million dollars. All I could do was roll my eyes in shame.

How has it come to this point where we play games with ludicrous amounts of money. I can't even list the ways that 100 millions dollars could be used otherwise. 100 million in college scholarships, 100 million invested in libraries around the world, 100 million to bribe Bush to leave office early. When I see ads for programs like that I am amazed how we can live with ourselves when we trivialize monstrous amounts of money that could feed hundreds of people for years. No one person needs 100 million dollars to begin with. Oh sure, we'll have the story of the poor inner-city public school teacher winning a million. Even then a million is too much for one person. It doesn't matter what kind of poverty or misfortune you're living in, vast amounts of money are not going to help a bit. For the inner-city school teacher, how is a vast sum of 100 million going to help? Will it end the class system in the United States and make the students of your school equal with the students from the rich suburban school? Will it solve the fact that many children won't move on far in school because they need to work for sickeningly low wages to help support their family? Will it stop violence that stems from the dehumanizing condition of proletariat? Will it stop the fact that the government could care less about education and instead fight a colonial war? Here's the nail in the coffin: said teacher won't even get the entire sum of money, a fair chunk of it will go to the government which will then be used to further perpetuate capitalism, oppression of the working class and a war in the name of Christianity and capitalism.

I have other gripes, I'll try and make this one short. I've seen shows like Home Makeover, where ABC tries to find the most heart-wrenching story it can to viciously play on the emotions of viewers and then throws vast amounts of money at them and builds them enormous houses. I hate to sound emotionally dead but when people are so heartened and inspired by these stories I can't help but think of how naive they are. First and foremost there is not even the slightest humanitarian aspiration of these shows; they are simply taking advantage of our craving to see good in this world crumbling down around us. Second of all, there is absolutely no progress being made in these shows. Occasionally they manage to find someone living in "poverty" but building an over-sized, fancy, house-sized billboard does more harm than good. Change is a gradual thing, not something that can be fit into an hour slot on Sunday night. Fighting poverty and misfortune does not mean finding the worst situations and building impressive houses. Its like getting your arm cut off in a machine, then paying hundreds of thousands of dollars for a mechanical arm and then building a new machine that doesn't require your labor to run it. Its counter productive and doesn't realize the array of conditions and moments that lead one's self to a horrible situation.

While I sit next to crying and heartened people watching these shows, seeing good being done, seeing a down and out person finally getting a break, I can't help but realize that these problems will not stop because of television give aways. We trivialize wealth and social problems for the sake of entertainment and eventually making disgustingly large sums of money that are paid to high level CEOs and management who drive home in their BMWs to their huge houses in California where their children arrive home from private school and everyone enjoys a nice family dinner cooked by Rosa. Rosa, in turn, goes home to her on bedroom apartment in the slum, uses her wages to feed her child, deletes all the calls from creditors and government agencies, talks to her mother back home in Mexico and waits for ABC to coming knocking at her door to help her out.

On the Future and Anthropology

See an update to this entry here...


Whether or not we like it, the world is a shrinking place. I think most would wonder why advances in technology and communication could be disliked, but I say this because there are those of us who don't appreciate and, quite frankly, detest what our world has become. Therefore, it is a shame, for us, to see the world we have come to know and hate slowly creep over all that has potential for good. This is beside the point though, at least for me because I have resigned myself to the fact that the takeover of materialism, capitalism, neo-colonialism and ethnocentrism is inevitable. Simply put, we must wait it out.

This statement, then, coincides with the contradictory nature that thrives within me. While I have resigned myself to this fact, I can't simply let it happen. As a humanist I have hope in humanity and the human condition. It lies in education. Not the type that humanitarians think we should spread across the "third" world (as if this planet allowed some to be fenced off from others!), not the type that Oprah gives to the girls in South Africa, not the type that the Catholics have traditionally offered at home and abroad. No, in my own recognized ethnocentric nature, I suggest a different kind of education; anthropology. I have been embedded in this discipline for three years now and it saddens me that it is such a forgotten discipline. (As I write this, I can't help but wonder if maybe anthropology is one of those few good things left in the world.) Anthropologists are an interesting breed. We're often impossible to describe on an individual basis so let's forget generalizing. The fact is, the more anthropologists I spend time with the more my mind opens, the happier my life gets and the more I hope I have for the future. I think it is the ideas we have, the knowledge we gain and the perspective we take that offers hope for the future.

I was going to offer a case study of my own university, but for fear of becoming to lengthy, I thought better of it. The point is that current "diversity" and cultural education in this country is severely lacking, if not non-existent. As I wrote somewhere once, we unabashedly celebrate difference without sensitivity and thereby alienate ourselves and others. Somehow we think that we can teach students about others without approaches developed by a field which has devoted itself to studying cultures. I've attended few "diversity" events at my university, but I have taken the course that defines our approach to worldly understanding; instead of students learning of others, they learn of otherness. I see current approaches only reinforcing strict "them and us" dichotomies. This leads to a security in thought and action. We believe that our actions can only be good because we understand other people, we have dealt with "diversity" and we are sensitive to other cultures. In fact, while made strikingly aware of cultural differences, our own way is still celebrated, we only discuss others in our own terms. This is a dangerous security.

Anthropology, simple introductory classes, cultivate different and often times new understandings. The most simple concept to an anthropologist in the 21st century is cultural relativism. Cultures can only be understood and should only be considered on their own terms. Reflexivity is massively important, for we must be aware of biases. Why do we feel the way we do about things? Anthropologists are not gods, we cannot overcome our biases, but the very act of recognizing them and considering how they shape what we learn about others is a skill we all (at least those true anthropologists) acquire and seek to master.

We do not have the power to change differences between "us" and "them" and we should not want such power. Difference is something to live joyously alongside with. However, the one way barrier between us and them need not be impenetrable. Simply considerations of biases and how we have come to be who we are break down this barrier, allowing for a two way transfer where all factors are considered. This is what anthropology has to offer to our shrinking world; a world where cultures are clashing and clashing on a daily basis. A world where all that people know falls apart around them forcing them to reckon with unfamiliar and confusing norms. A world where populations of people, internally as diverse as the sun and the moon, are generalized and told that they do not understand our ways, they cannot function in the modern world without our help. It is in this world and the near future that the one-way barriers between us and them must be perforated if not torn down.

I'm not saying that everyone should be an anthropologist, indeed, it is a field suited for very few. But the ideas and approaches that we practice and study should not be kept and secret and left hidden deep within the ivory tower of academia. This is a call, not only to those who could benefit from such education, but also to those who live it every day. Why contradict ourselves and create barriers between the "lay" and ourselves? We must share and make our ideas accessible, we must create programs that share our approaches and allow students (from graduate to elementary) to learn how to break down barriers and reach better understandings around them. I believe that it is in our hands that the impetus for change lies, we cannot change the world by locking ourselves deep within the halls of scholarship. No, we must make available those ideas and theories that lie at our core, that make use who we are. Cultural relativism and reflexivity, the most basic of our tenets, this is where the future of humanity lies.

"Oprah doesn't give a damn about culture..."

I hate Oprah Winfrey. There are very few people that I truly dislike; only 4 out of all the people I've met. I've never met Oprah but I dislike her. She may be a wonderful person, amiable, well mannered, humble (hah!), but the role she has in society and her public actions make me sick to my stomach nearly giving me nightmares.

First off, the least of my concerns, is that she has far too much money. I don't know how anyone can feel good about themselves and their lives when they hold more wealth than some entire countries. Bill Gates and that IKEA guy are very much in this same boat. Oh sure, they donate large sums to various charities (which are rich in their own rights), but the simple fact that while millions around the world go hungry working for pennies an hour Bill Gates can hold however many billion dollars he's worth is immoral. I doubt that Bill Gates or Oprah donate truly significant portions of their wealth. The day that Bill Gates donates half his net worth to a truly worthy cause will be the day I reconsider respecting him. Until then, he and the wealth bracket he represent are greedy, immoral leeches, their parasitic jaws engorging themselves on the downtrodden, poor and impressionable.

My biggest concern has been reignited just lately, in the wake of the scandal, as it were, at Oprah's South African school (Which is named after her. Conceded? You decide.) When I first heard about this, as when I first hear about all seemingly good acts, I was critical. Nothing is so simple that it can be praised in totality. Oprah considers herself a saint, with a dream for bring salvation to Africa. This paternalistic attitude is eerily reminiscent of colonialism which considered the "other" to be in need of help, to be civilized. In her latest press conference Oprah says that she's considers these girls, "...her children." Oprah may be "african american" but this doesn't make her African or even really give any tangible connection to Africa at all, though however one decides to interpret descent is one's own choice. In her actions and rhetoric I see nothing further than wanting to civilize the savage Africans, bring "modernity" to them through "education." By educating she spreads western capitalistic, materialistic values. She throws radically different notions of culture and societal expectations into the minds of children without any cultural sensitivity to what is important to them. This is representative of a Neo-Colonialism that is manifesting itself in seemingly good "humanitarian" organizations that want to do something. That something being conceived within a US/western/industrial notions of culture, success and morality.

This rant is not to say that social problems should be ignored. AIDS and hunger in Africa are big problems, civil strife often displaces many. But Africa is not all strife and death and misery, there are beautiful places where people live on arable land and produce enough to feed families and trade in markets. People have lived in African for millions of years, certainly this fact deserves some credit. If we truly respect and want to help people in Africa then we need to consider them on their own terms. Let aid be distributed by Africans within Africa. Where do people in the United States, humanitarian workers, get off thinking that they know how to solve problems in tropical countries better than those who have survived there for years? Historical and cultural considerations are vital if any solution or, dare I say, progress is to be made. Oprah doesn't give a damn about culture, she wants the girls to go off, leave their families, live confined and cut off from the world on the school campus, assimilate to US western values, probably go to university in the United States where they are likely never to return to their home. How noble. She wants, more than that, to see her name and let people know that she "cares." I think of Victorian aristocrats feeling cultured after they have traveled to the deepest jungles in Africa and bartered with the savage.

It sickens me more that some people blindly support her and agree with her that she is truly noble, going out of her way to help the meek, saintly almost. Such blind and, essentially, ignorant support and devotion reeks of colonialism and will only cause more hurt than it did in the past.