anthropology

A special edition of the Linguistic Anthropology Roundup to introduce, Ben Zimmer, a Chicago-trained linguistic anthropologist, linguist and lexicographer who was just appointed as the New York Times’s Sunday Magazine, “On Language” columnist. Thanks to Bambi Schieffelin, Kerim Friedman and Scott Keisling for mentioning his appointment.

Gerald Mazorati’s article introducing Ben Zimmer: http://www.nytimes.com/2010/03/21/magazine/21edlet-t.html

NY Times Press Release: http://phx.corporate-ir.net/phoenix.zhtml?c=105317&p=irol-pressArticle&ID=1401763&highlight= Huffington Post mentioning his appointment: http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2010/03/11/ben-zimmer-new-on-languag_n_495867.html

Ben Zimmer on

No: http://www.nytimes.com/2010/03/21/magazine/21FOB-onlanguage-t.html

Optics: http://query.nytimes.com/gst/fullpage.html?res=9A02E2D6173BF934A35750C0A9669D8B63

Podium: http://query.nytimes.com/gst/fullpage.html?res=9E00E0DC123BF934A35751C0A9669D8B63

Crash Blossoms: http://www.nytimes.com/2010/01/31/magazine/31FOB-onlanguage-t.html

Choate: http://query.nytimes.com/gst/fullpage.html?res=9A00E3D91339F930A35752C0A9669D8B63

Skxawng! (The invention of science fiction languages) http://www.nytimes.com/2009/12/06/magazine/06FOB-onlanguage-t.html?_r=1

Cadillac as a figure of speech: http://www.nytimes.com/2009/11/08/magazine/08FOB-onlanguage-t.html

Ms.: http://www.nytimes.com/2009/10/25/magazine/25FOB-onlanguage-t.html

The death of William Safire: http://www.nytimes.com/2009/10/11/magazine/11FOB-onlanguage-t.html

A conference organized by the Institute for Public Knowledge at New York University

April 23, 2010, 5:00PM - 8:00PM 20 Cooper Square, New York, NY Reception and Keynote with W.J.T. Mitchell "Seeing the Non-Citizen: Migration, Law, and the Image" RSVP for keynote: https://www.nyu.edu/ipk/events/rsvp.php?eventId=100

April 24, 2010, 9:00AM - 6:15PM 20 Cooper Square, New York, NY Panel Discussions with Ariella Azoulay, Jason Cone, Sam Gregory, Robert Harriman, Manuel Herz, Nicolas Mirzoeff, Fred Ritchin, Richard Sennett, and Eyal Weizman. RSVP for panel discussions: https://www.nyu.edu/ipk/events/rsvp.php?eventId=101

A detailed schedule of the conference is available here: http://www.nyu.edu/ipk/conferences/visual-citizenship-conference/

Reply below and let us know how you would complete this quote:

“In collaborative research with dancers, scientists can…”

This week’s quote comes from page 25 of Brain, Dance & Culture 2: Evolutionary Characteristics in the collaborative choreographic process of Elizabeth Cameron Dalman, an article by Paul Mason & Elizabeth Dalman (2009).

The second in a two-part series on brain, dance and culture has just been published by Brolga–An Australian Journal about dance. In this series, I present a cognitive ethnography of dance that draws upon theory and methodology from dance anthropology and phenomenology. Specifically, the articles look at evolutionary processes that can be found in brain and culture with dance as a socially and physically embedded activity that exists at the intersection of neural and cultural processes. There are five key processes of evolutionary systems that can be identified in collaborative choreography: Variation, Selection, Memory, Organisation and Complexity. Identifying these five processes at multiple levels of complexity is an important step towards understanding how brain and culture interact in human expressive systems.

This Train Choreographed by Elizabeth Cameron Dalman, Photograph courtesy of Graham Howard (2006)

Abstract for Brain, Dance and Culture 2:

2006 saw the end of a performance dance course that was once integrally connected to the performing arts in New South Wales. That same year, Australian choreographer Elizabeth Cameron Dalman (1934-) and dance researcher Paul Mason (1982-) undertook a period of collaborative research into the evolution of the choreographic process from improvisation to performance. Dance choreography allows researchers a unique opportunity to gain insight into the dynamics of discrete social systems. It offers them distinctive perspectives to understand the dynamic interactions between embodied minds and socio-cultural processes. It is hypothesised that collaborative choreography is characterised by evolutionary properties that can be characterised at multiple levels of complexity. Dance is constructed by embodied brains and shaped by social and cultural interactions. The end of a dance course in Western Sydney coincided with the burgeoning of new dance research methodologies in Australia.

Cognitive ethnography is a research method that contextualises cognitive processes in social interaction. This particular project involved a cognitive ethnography of three choreographies by Elizabeth Cameron Dalman: This Train, Ways of Water and Dalman’s protest-piece against the declining support for the arts in Australia, Dancing on the Grave. As principal researcher, I was situated as an apprentice, dancer and an ethnographer in the construction of these three pieces. This Train was a remake of Dalman’s 1965 choreography of the same name. Ways of Water and Dancing on the Grave were both new choreographies. As participant-observer and novice dancer, I travelled from the phenomenological through the co-phenomenological and into the socio-cultural dynamics of creating a choreographed work. This interdisciplinary exchange offered Elizabeth and I an opportunity to explore new perspectives, expanded vocabularies and deeper understandings of the body-brain-culture interactions in socially negotiated practices.

This is what the Editor’s have to say:

“In his article ‘Brain, Dance and Culture’, anthropology and dance student Paul Mason presents some of the results of a research project enquiring into the evolutionary properties of collaborative choreography” (Brissenden, 2009)

“Paul Mason’s approach to his research collaboration with the choreographer Elizabeth Cameron Dalman describes her choreographic processes as evidence of complex evolutionary systems. Drawing upon cognitive psychology for his key terms, Mason utilises an ethnographic method to participate in learning and shaping three choreographic works created by Dalman: the first is a reconstruction of her 1965 piece, This Train, and two more recent works created with young dancers which have reflected current environmental and social concerns. Mason suggests that his involvement in these works might provide neuroscientists with methods to recognise the adaptability of cognitive processes involved in social interaction.” (Fensham, 2010:6)

Juliana Zamudio & Paul Mason in Ways of Water choreographed by Elizabeth Cameron Dalman Photo courtesy of Graham Howard (2006)

This week’s unfinished quote comes from the article, Brain, Dance and Culture 2 in the most recent peer-reviewed edition of Brolga: An Australian Journal about Dance.

How would you complete this quote?

“In collaborative research with dancers, scientists can…”

NPR has a nice profile of the couple which runs Snopes.com. Having long ago convinced most of my contacts to stop forwarding chain e-mails, I rarely check Snopes anymore, but inspired by the NPR story I went back and was pleased to see that they have an entire section devoted to language. They have sections on folk etymologies, mistranslations, nonexistent words, etc.

Related: The Snowclones Database

The Institute of Archaeology, UCL is holding a conference "Wrapping and Unwrapping the Body - Archaeological and Anthropological Perspectives" on the 20th-21st May 2010.

For more information, see the poster attached. Download file

Registration and information: http://www.ucl.ac.uk/silva/archaeology/events/conference/wrapping10/

Ad Hominin just hosted the anthropology carnival Four Stone Hearth, the Saint Patrick’s edition.

Ad Hominin features a new list of 100 Best Anthropology Blogs for Students from OnlineDegrees.net You can find a lot there if you’re not familiar with anthropology online.

Then you get archaeology, biological anthropology, linguistic anthropology, and sociocultural anthropology – something from all the major sub-fields, including abbeys, dispersal of early Homo, Siberian languages on the verge of extinction, and educational malpractice.

So go enjoy Four Stone Hearth #88.

Yesterday the Academic Council at Duke University unanimously adopted an Open Access policy for scholarly articles written by the Duke faculty.

- Read full article here.

SVA members and others engaged in visual research projects are invited to submit proposals for the annual Visual Research Conference until March 27.  Directions for how to submit proposals and additional information about the conference can be found on the SVA website.  The March 27 deadline is a week extension that still provides time for the Visual Research Conference committee to review proposals before the AAA program deadline of April 1st.

From the Homeland Security Act of 2002:

“The Secretary, acting through the Under Secretary for Science and Technology, shall designate a university-based center or several university-based centers for homeland security. The purpose of the center or these centers shall be to establish a coordinated, university-based system to enhance the nation’s homeland security.”

Uniform “Research”

We have been looking at the array of private corporations with contracts for intelligence, surveillance, and targeted killing that are involved in recruiting, training, and equipping the U.S. Army’s Human Terrain System, and its program of recruiting social scientists. In addition, we examined some examples of the “human terrain” as a doctrine, taken up by both independent and university-based research institutes, and by sections of the military itself and for itself, without necessarily seeking the aid of the academy. Here we look at a broader phenomenon, more reminiscent of the way the national security state has tried to rope academics into “terror research” via the Minerva Research Initiative. In particular, we are dealing with universities, or units within them, making themselves into willing servants of the national security state, actively seeking contracts for terror research, selling their expertise to make war against those who resist unprovoked aggression and occupation by the U.S. state.

In essence they are selling protection, in this case knowledge for protection (“security”), and as we have seen this is not the only suggestion of racketeering. More than that, we are faced with a case of what some might call the Sovietization of the academy, what others could rightly identify as the reinvention of a fascist university that aligns with the state, under the guise of serving the people, hoping we do not detain our attention on the fact that it is in classical fascist regimes where the state is equated with the people.

We ought to be reminded here of the very wise warnings that have been articulated by Hugh Gusterson and David Price, and the Network of Concerned Anthropologists to which they belong:

in a society where thought is already too deeply militarized, academic spaces of dissent from the prevailing military mindset will be further eroded as researchers talk themselves into believing that telling the military how to do kinder, gentler, more informed military occupations represents critical thinking. (Hugh Gusterson and here in “Unveiling Minerva)

Regarding the iron clad institutionalization of the Lysenko doctrine in the Soviet academy, David H. Price wrote,

So powerful was Lysenko’s impact that the bogus experimental data he produced to justify his work stood unchallenged for decades as valid empirical work.

Soviet biologists learned to align their work with the state’s conception of the world, and the career’s of those dissidents who would not so align their views fell by the wayside.

The demands of conforming scientific knowledge with the ideological positions of a powerful state stunted the development of Soviet biology for decades.  But today, American social science faces new forms of ideologically controlled funding that stand to transform our universities’ production of knowledge in ways reminiscent of the Soviet Union’s ideological control over scientific interpretations. (David H. Price, “Social Science in Harness“)

“University” of Maryland: START…back in 1984

One example of what I mentioned in the first paragraph is in focus here: the University of Maryland’s START leading a National Consortium for the Study of Terrorism and Responses to Terrorism, with the University of Maryland boasting that it is a “center of excellence of the U.S. Department of Homeland Security“, one of several in a program instituted in 2002 — deriving its legitimacy, and supposedly its prestige (?), from such an association. According to the START website, anthropologists are among the 65 researchers working in the program. START derives its senior advisors from the military, intelligence, and defense contracting industry.

A banner image appears on the front page, with the American flag caressing the New York City skyline (the  seemingly redundant reminder that this distinctive skyline is American is meant to appeal to patriotism). It’s a skyline of patriotism, a frontline in war against “terror.” But look at this! What does this skyline have? It has the World Trade Center in it:

One might ask, “But weren’t the WTC Towers destroyed? They’re not part of that skyline anymore.” To that the banner answers, “Exactly! Now you get our point.” Making this even more ridiculous is that it decorates a university website, where intellectuals have stopped being intellectuals and have instead become data gathering apparatchiks. There is no freedom of thought here, no autonomy, rather we have ritual incantation of magical patriotic tropes, playing on fear, and we should all know very well what the powerful effect of fear is on the ability to think rationally and critically. So much for unemotional, objective science, we have its representation above.

Research at START is divided into three working groups. One looks at “terrorist group formation and recruitment.” No mention here, of course, of even the slightest hint of the possibility that the U.S. provokes responses to its own state terror, or that such an idea could even be discussed. (This is the “University” of Maryland after all, and we are not meant to read too much into that archaic first word in its title.) Far from it, and if anything one merely expressing such concerns might draw their aim, as the primary concern of this working group is “radicalization” — radicalization, happening elsewhere, according to its own laws, its own logic, hermetically sealed off from the actions and effects of U.S. imperialism.

The second working group focuses on “terrorist group persistence” — persistence, of course, because U.S. strategies have failed to do anything other than spread the conflagration. Note here the tremendous fear, and the aspersions implicitly cast by these “researchers” when it comes to “radicalization” — it turns out that the “pyramid of terrorism” includes at its base “all who sympathize with terrorist goals, even though they may disagree with terrorists’ attacks on civilians.” Get it? You may well be a terrorist.

The third working group has to do with “societal responses to terrorist threats and attacks,” which makes sense, because there is no point cultivating fear if you cannot inculcate it and train the populace to unanimously respond in concert when “threatened.” These are always innocent victims, but apparently innocent also in the sense of simpletons, mentally impaired, child-like, innocent as in retarded by fear. This is an inclusive program, that seeks to bring its findings down to the level of “household and community preparedness for terrorist attacks.”

Is START an isolated case. Hardly. Look at its impressive list of U.S. academic partner institutions.

Workshop of Military Anthropology in the UK

We find other, smaller-scale examples of universities and their academics seeking to cash in on “terror research” by offering their knowledge as a source of “protection.” One example involves the “Culture in Conflict Symposium” at the Defence Academy of the United Kingdom, on 16 – 17 June 2010. It includes a Workshop on “Spatial Sociocultural Knowledge” (read human terrain) and followed by a one-day Military Anthropology Workshop. There is no clearer expression of the way academics have become comfortable players in the pyramid scheme of war corporatism than when they call themselves “military anthropologists.”

U.S. Pacific Command’s Socio-Cultural Dynamics Program

Of course it is not always up to the initiative of academics to create academic centers that supply research to the national security state. As with Minerva, the state itself can seek out research, but sometimes in even more innocuous and surreptitious ways. Corey Stutte, the Engagement Manager for U.S. Pacific Command’s (PACOM) Socio-Cultural Dynamics (SCD) Program has announced that they “will have opportunities in the near future for professors and students to publish non-military related Asia-Pacific research articles that will be used by both civilian and military decision makers.” Stutte is looking for “information gaps” in “both military and socio-cultural intelligence for the Asia-Pacific region.”  How to fill those gaps? Invite academics to supply it in the form of published journal articles, as “mid to long term socio-cultural dynamics requirements…can best be met by academia,” and for that reason PACOM is establishing a quarterly academic E-Journal (yet to be named) hosted by PACOM to provide a central location for publishing research on important non-military matters.”

Stutte is the social science “academic liaison” for PACOM. Among his tasks is to “develop SCD contracts with academia and/or industry think tanks. The SCD academic outreach may include, but not be limited to, organizations with expertise in the fields of: Cultural Anthropology….” He will “develop and implement a JIOC academic/industry engagement strategy and a geo-referenced SCD data acquisition plan,” and “establish and optimize the working relationship between JIOC, academia, and industry to incorporate geo-referenced SCD data into PACOM JIOC analysis” and he will “monitor SCD data collected through PACOM’s academic outreach to ensure that data adheres to PACOM taxonomy requirements.” Surely, it is purely innocent journal publishing.

Social Scientists to Fight Jihadists

“I’ve been with would-be martyrs and holy warriors from Morocco’s Atlantic shore to Indonesia’s outer islands, and from Gaza to Kashmir….This is an apt moment for such a hearing, given the recent uptick in homegrown terror activities” — Dr. Scott Atran, anthropologist, director of research for ARTIS Research and Risk Modeling, speaking to the Senate Armed Services Subcommittee on Emerging Threats and Capabilities, 10 March 2010, p. 2

With reference to “upticks” of violence (because they can be so calibrated, presumably) Scott Atran deployed his security-speak to address research on conflict in “hotspots” (what the rest of us know as places where U.S. hegemony is put at risk). He told the Senate subcommittee that, “If you want to be successful in the long run where it counts ─ in stopping the next and future generations of disaffected youth from finding their life’s meaning in the thrill and adventure of joining their friends in taking on the world’s mightiest power; if this committee is to be truly relevant in solving the radicalization problem that it poses, then you have to understand these pathways that take young people to and from political and group violence. Then, knowing these pathways, you can do what needs to be done” (p. 2). His major complaint was that this research was not being well funded. Money, for protection.

This is the now usual sales pitch, pioneered by the Human Terrain System: research to save lives and money (p. 2). Atran promises results, to counter “radicalization,” none of which involve the U.S. changing its basic approach to the world. The U.S. is blameless, it is those “rootless and restless” others that “we” are to be concerned about. As with the START banner above, a deep rooted patriotism is what ultimately underpins the thinking here.

Atran is not calling for another HTS program, however, his plan has one difference: “There is a pressing need for fieldwork by social scientists in actual and potential conflict zones. There is also compelling case for involving social scientists in helping to form cultural and social awareness in the military theater. Nevertheless, social scientists should not be directly embedded with military units in theater” (p. 6). Indeed, he can become quite critical of HTS, for being both counterproductive, dangerous, and should be made redundant:

I do not think that efforts like the Human Terrain System experiment in Afghanistan are all that promising. It is the infantry units themselves that should be trained before they go in theater to be culturally sensitive, and not have to rely on temporarily embedded “combat ethnographers” who move from unit to unit, thus undoing the personal connections that may have made them effective with the local population by providing medical aid and other needed non military services.

such efforts as these, small as they are, are potentially quite counterproductive. They only further alienate most social science academics from the military or, indeed, from any involvement in U.S. policy decision making that involves projection of power or conflict. The military and cultural reality of the terrain may favor having embedded social scientists be uniformed and armed (in part, because unarmed Western civilians would more likely draw fire as high-value targets). But the possibility that social scientists themselves would have to fire their weapons and perhaps kill local people – indeed, the mere sight of armed and uniformed American social scientists in a foreign theater – is guaranteed to engender academia’s deep hostility. (p. 6).

Yet it is superficial critique that is offered by Atran, a mere difference over tactics, not goals, and in that he largely misses the point made by Gusterson and Price above. Atran’s “solution” to the divide between anthropology and the military is this: “Training and rewarding soldiers for being culturally knowledgeable and socially savvy ─ which goes beyond learning a language or studying a checklist of cultural preferences and habits ─ could be so much more effective for achieving our country’s political and military mission. Moreover, involvement of top social scientists in deliberations such as these, and in publicly transparent field projects, could help heal the divide between some of our best thinkers and policymakers and operators” (p. 6).

His program? “Preventing radicalization…Countering radicalization…De-radicalizing those who have committed to violence” (p. 6). Americans have not achieved this at home, but some propose to do in foreign societies and cultures. Atran proposes to give “jihadist” youth new heroes (p. 7). Hamid Karzai? Mahmoud Abbas? Brittney Spears?

What impressed me the most, especially about the tenor and content of his opening words to the senators a few days ago, was that I had heard all of this long ago. Readers can ascertain this for themselves, by viewing this video clip from Atran’s address to the Senate Armed Services Subcommittee on Emerging Threats and Capabilities:

Filed under: COLONIALISM/IMPERIALISM, HEGEMONY, POLITICAL ECONOMY OF ACADEMIA Tagged: Charles Kirke, Corey Stutte, david price, HTS, HTT, Hugh Gusterson, human terrain, Human Terrain System, Lysenko, militarization, military anthropology, Minerva Research Initiative, network of concerned anthropologists, PACOM, Socio-cultural dynamics, spatial sociocultural knowledge

The Wenner-Gren Institutional Development Grant (IDG) program supports the growth and development of anthropological doctoral programs in countries where the discipline is underrepresented and where there are limited resources for academic development. The grant provides $25,000 per year and is renewable for a maximum of five years. It may be used for any purpose to achieve the academic development goals of the applicant department. A minimum of one new award will be made each year and priority will be given to departments that have arranged strong partnership arrangements with other anthropological institutions that can help them achieve their development goals.

Since the program’s inauguration, three institutions have been able to develop and improve their doctoral programs: the Central Department of Sociology and Anthropology at Tribhuvan U, Nepal; Department of Social and Cultural Anthropology at Mongolian National U; and Museo Antropologia, National U of Cordoba, Argentina.

Filed under: Career/Funding/Awards

Congrats to the Society for East Asian Anthropology (SEAA) on the launch of their vibrant new website. The site includes helpful information about SEAA, details on SEAA-sponsored prizes, section board contact info, and more! The site notes:

SEAA is committed to developing international channels of communication among anthropologists throughout the world. We hope to promote discussion and share information on diverse topics related to the anthropology of Taiwan; PRC; Hong Kong; Japan; Korea; other societies/cultures of Asia and the Pacific Basin with historical or contemporary ties to East Asia; transnational linkages among East Asian or between East Asian and other societies/cultures; and diasporic societies/cultures identified with East Asia.

Filed under: Association Business, Resources

Want to participate in a discussion on the Smithsonian’s new 15,000 sq. ft. David H Koch Hall of Human Origins, which chronicles human evolution over the past 6 million years? The Washington Post has announced that Richard Potts, paleoanthropologist and curator of anthropology, will be online today at 11:00 am ET to take questions and comments about the exhibit.  Submit your questions and comments before or during the discussion.

See also today’s Washington Post article and photo gallery on the exhibition hall, and the website for the Smithsonian’s Human Origins program.

Filed under: Anthro in the Media, Events and Exhibits

ENCASA’s Ruben Rubaut informs us of their involvement with the Amistad Project: The Amistad slave ship replica is on its way to Cuba. With permission from both the Cuban and the U.S. governments, it will dock in Matanzas on the 22th to visit the Slavery Museum there, then sail to Havana for the celebration of the U.N.’s Day of Remembrance for the Victims of the Atlantic Slave Trade. The ship will stay in Havana for a week. Here is the  LINK to the press release.

This past week has been momentous in terms of support for increased cultural and academic exchanges with Cuba. A letter that appeared in The Chronicle of Higher Education a few days ago argued for a modification in U.S. Cuban policy to allow for lifting restrictions (severely worsened by the Bush administration), so that U.S. academics can conduct research in Cuba without U.S. government interference. On the other side of the academic aisle, so to speak, others have argued that without a political opening in Cuba, these pro-travel academics are only playing into Cuba’s window dressing game, for real research is impossible while the Cuban government does not allow U.S. scholars’ unrestricted access to research sites. Their position is that to press for academic exchanges in the U.S. without simultaneously demanding change in Cuba is hypocritical. Our CUNY colleague and El Yuma blogger Ted Henken has taken issue with this counter argument (made mostly by, in turn, a colleague of his, economist Jorge Sanguinetty). According to Ted Henken, it is possible to do real research in Cuba even if one does not have proper research authorization from the Cuban government. Furthermore, some research is better than no research, and students will still benefit from the opportunity.

While I agree with Ted and with the spirit of the Chronicle’s letter, I do think that not all research projects are created equal. Some of them are impossible to carry out without explicit on-site permission and facilitation (I am aware that this is not unique to Cuba; there are plenty of research arenas in the United States that are off limits to foreign, and at times also native, scholars).  To point: Without a proper research affiliation in Cuba, there are archives, survey populations and marine reefs, among many other possibilities, that are off limits.  While some might be able to carry out their investigation without any extravagant need for additional support and collaboration (say someone conducting research on Cuban street slang), others (say someone wishing to study the garbage disposal system and its ecological impact) might have a harder time with only a tourist visa and no institutional support. Furthermore, ethnographic research (which is after all the inspiration for this blog project) requires a lengthy stay. I am of the old fashioned opinion that proper ethnographic fieldwork cannot be bypassed and substituted by a few short trips; much less if such research is the basis of a dissertation-type project.  Since the opening of academic relations in the 1990s,  such research has typically been conducted under a student visa; which by its very definition is not fit for a post-graduate scholar. And only very exceptionally post-graduate scholars have been able to obtain a research visa: the process is long and cumbersome, to say the least. Their alternative has been, precisely, short trips as tourists; trips that in a couple of unfortunate cases had no happy ending precisely because the person overstepped the boundaries set by the tourist visa.

Henken seems to be advocating complete freedom of research, and I do agree in principle with that position, but in a world of international states and borders it is unfortunately a utopia.  In the end it comes down to whether the ends justify the means. While a specific research or student visa be required by the Cuban government as a prerequisite to conduct bona fide academic research on the island, as responsible university professors we cannot advocate the break of that country’s laws.  I, for one, would very much like to see U.S. roadblocks disappear, and subsequently, I would also like to see the parallel Cuban bureaucratic process  eased.  Let’s hope that the Amistad journey will stand as a symbol not only of the past but also of the future.

Honestly I don’t know why I’m on a journalism kick lately, but here I go again: Colin Marshall, host of a podcast and radio show called The Marketplace of Ideas recently posted an excellent list of interview techniques, including things like “have a conversation” and “reveal your ignorance”. Two things are interesting: 1) journalists, like anthropologists, frequently fall prey to an ideological sense of what makes a “scientific” or objective interview (a rote list of questions asked like the advancing front of a battle), and it often makes for bad journalism, by which I mean, journalism that doesn’t tell us anything we don’t already know; and 2) everything Marshall lists might be understood as ways to get outside the “framing” of discourse. This latter point is essential to me: anthropologists are doing good work when they figure out how to de-frame discourse, i.e. how to work a conversation out of the frames that restrict people from thinking. The salience of “framing” is obvious to sociologists, linguists, political scientists and others today, and there is much quality research on framing… but very little research on resisting the framing of discourse and enabling the progress of thinking. I read these tips as clear strategies for doing just that.

Welcome to the inaugural Society for Linguistic Anthropology Roundup Blogpost that will briefly summarize some of the current interesting linguistic anthropology related materials available on the web.

Three of us, Alex Enkerli (SLA Web Guru), Chad Nilep (a regular blogger on this site), and myself (Leila Monaghan, SLA Digital Content Editor), will share the duties of doing the Roundups. We welcome suggestions about interesting current news links or good websites—feel free to post them in the Feedback Boxes at the bottom right of every page in this blog or make a comment in response to this Roundup. We will also be soliciting suggestions from the Linganth List (see the Resources Link on the bar above to join). Do let us know if you are interested in doing a guest or regular Roundup Blogpost

ROUNDUP for March 19, 2010

Times’ Topics: Language and Languages A good source for language connected articles, some of them more interesting to linguistic anthropologists than others, is the New York Times’ Times Topics: Language and Languages

Classic articles

Nicholas Wade’s article A Human Language Gene Changes the Sound of Mouse Squeaks on the effects of implanting a human language gene into a mouse’s brain

and Simon Romero’s A Language, Not Quite Spanish, With African Echoes that documents Palenquero, a language used only in one small village in Colombia that might be the last trace of a Spanish-based lingua franca used by enslaved Africans across Latin America.

More recent articles in the archive John Tagliabue’s Trumpeting Catalan on the Big Screen Trumpeting Catalan on the Big Screen covers a recent Barcelona local government law just passed requiring that half the films shown in local theaters to be dubbed in Catalan, which is similar to Spanish but shows more similarities to French and Italian than Castilian Spanish does. Local movie theater operators are objecting because of the cost of dubbing movies and argue that Catalan productions are available in live theater productions.

For more information on Catalan, language variation in Spain, and Spanish dialects see Wikipedia:Catalan Spanish Dialects

Omniglot.com: Catalan

Altalang.com:Spanish Dialects

Ammon Shea’s Vocabulary Size This is was in the NY Times’s On Language column, a regular feature of the NY Times Sunday Magazine. Vocabulary Size

As Shea discusses in this article, there has long been a push by dictionary writers and educators for people to “increase their vocabulary.” There is also standard testing evidence linking higher socio-economic status with larger vocabularies. While Shea defends simplicity in language, arguing for Winston Churchill’s “blood, toil, tears and sweat” over “vermeil, moiling, delacrimation and sudorification,” he does not question the validity of the standard tests of vocabulary.

M.A.K. Halliday’s concept of “anti-language”, which describes how groups of people with something to hide from authorities will “overlexicalize” the standard vocabulary (multiple and ever changing terms for standard items in the repertoire). This overlexicalization would lead to a large vocabulary that the standardized test takers would never using in their testing materials. This reframes a standard vocabulary test as “a test of how many words a person knows of the words that the test writers know,” not of overall vocabulary. When I was teaching elementary school in Philadelphia, I saw a group of teachers bristle when the research on vocabulary was mentioned—while Philadelphia school children have many issues, lack of vocabulary was not seen as a problem.

Favorite of the Month My personal favorite article of the month is an Esquire interview by Chris Jones with film critic Roger Ebert. Ebert was left unable to speak after repeated bouts of jaw cancer but maintains an active life writing and blogging. For me as a scholar of disabilities as well as a linguistic anthropologist, it was a fascinating study of the work arounds in a life that was previously and famously verbal.

Linguistic Anthropology in languages other than English One response I got to a call for links was an e-mail mentioning a site with numerous links to linguistic anthropology in Spanish: Txupi Blog (see the right side bar for the links).

One of these is Lenguaje y Violencia by MJ Hardman.

Feel free to send other international links along, we would be happy to publish them in these Roundups.

Send us more links!

This Roundup is just the beginning—please send us any and all links you may have that you think will be of interest to our linguistic anthro audience. Just post them in our Feedback Box at the bottom of the page or leave a comment for us!

We got so many interesting paper proposals that we have extended the conference for an extra half day so we could fit them all in. The Wyoming Language, Culture and History Conference now runs from Thursday, July to Saturday, July 3. See below a preliminary program.

PRELIMINARY PROGRAM Language, Culture and History Conference Thursday, July 1 to Saturday, July 3 Department of Anthropology University of Wyoming Laramie, Wyoming Conference Website: http://uwadmnweb.uwyo.edu/anthropology/info.asp?p=19234 Registration Website: https://commerce.cashnet.com/uw_anthro

THURSDAY, JULY 1

8:30-9:00 Coffee

Welcomes: 9:00-9:10 Leila, Welcome to the Language, Culture and History Conference 9:10-9:30 Michael Harkin: Welcome from Anthropology Department: Hymes, Levi Strauss, and History 9:30-10:05 Michael Silverstein: Key Note Address 10:05-10:20 Audience Comments

Coffee Break/Reception 10:20-11:00

11:00-11:05 Leila Monaghan: How the Conference will work

Session 1: Native American Narratives and Music 1.1 11:05-11:25: Stacy Sewell, University of Wyoming, Warrior Narratives and Wind Rivers Basketball 11:25 Discussion

1.2 11:30-11:50: Anthony Webster, Southern Illinois University at Carbondale, Blackhorse Mitchell’s “Beauty of Navajoland”: Local Languages, Bivalency and the work of Navajo Poetry 11:50 Discussion

1.3 11:55-12:15: Jenny L. Davis, University of Colorado, Boulder (Linguistic) Diaspora in the Chickasaw Nation 12:15 Discussion

1.4 12:20-12:40: R. Timothy Rush, Christine Rogers and Burnett Whiteplume, University of Wyoming, Accessing History and Motivating Study through Music and Song 12:40 Discussion

12:45-12:50 General Discussion

Lunch 12:50-2:00 (Tentative Menu: Selection of Tortillas)

Session 2: Linguistic Ramifications of Colonialism 2.1 2:00-2:20: Jacqueline Messing, University of South Florida, Discourse Analysis and Ethnohistory: What Can Narrative Tell Us About Sixteenth Century Mexico 2:20-2:25 Discussion

2.2 2:25-2:45: E. Jennifer Monaghan, Brooklyn College, Culture, History, and the Acquisition of Literacy: The Experience of the Wampanoags of Martha’s Vineyard, 1643-1720 2:45-2:50 Discussion

2.3 2:50-3:10: Keisha Wiel, University of South Florida Perceptions on the Social Status of Papiamentu in Contrast to its Official Significance in Aruba and Curaçao 3:10-3:15 Discussion

2.4 3:15-3:35: Karenne Wood, University of Virginia,“The Language Ghost”: Linguistic Heritage and Collective Identity Among the Monacan Indians of Central Virginia 3:35-3:40 Discussion

3:40-3:45 General Discussion

Break 3:45-4:00

Session 3: Histories of North American Language Variation and Continuity 3.1 4:00-4:20: Rich Sandoval, University of Colorado, Boulder, Evidence for the Spanish Phono-Semantic Origins of ‘Cowboy’: The Linguistic Forging of the West 4:20-4:25 Discussion

3.2 4:25-4:45: Jennifer Schlegel, Kutztown University, Not Dead Yet: Examining the Life History of the Pennsylvania German Language 4:45-4:50 Discussion

3.3 4:50-5:10: Beth Simon, Indiana University Purdue University, Language and Survival In Michigan’s Keweenaw Copper Country 5:10-5:15 Discussion

3.4 5:15-5:35: Emily Weiskopf-Ball, French Frogs Don’t Die – They Croak Louder: The Long Road to Linguistic Equality in Ontario High Schools as Demonstrated by L’École Bilingue de North Bay 5:35-5:40 Discussion

3.5 5:40-6:00: Gloria Delany-Barmann and Carla Paciotto, Western Illinois University, Contesting Language Shift in the Rural Midwest: Developing Intercultural Identities and Voices in a Dual Language Program 6:00-6:05 General Discussion

Dinner: 7:30-9:30 at Leila’s House (Tenative Menu: Italian Bean Soup and Greek Salad, Selection of Breads)

FRIDAY, JULY 2

8:30-9:00 Coffee

Session 4: Alternate Theories of Discourse 4.1 9:00-9:20: Stephen Chrisomalis, Wayne State University, Dynamic Philology and the Anthropology of Numerals 9:20-9:25 Discussion

4.2 9:25-9:45: Peter Grund, University of Kansas,“I verily believe that she is a witch”: Evidence, Evidentiality, and the Witness Depositions from the Salem Witch Trials 9:45-9:50 Discussion

4.3 9:50-10:10: Peter Haney, Colorado College, The “Barbed Wire” of Print: Transcription, Theory, and Representation in Documentary Editing and Conversation Analysis 10:10-10:15 Discussion

Break: 10:15-10:30

4.4 10:30-10:50: Alison Quaggin Harkin, Athabasca University, Constructing the Idiot Asylum: A Critical Analysis of Past and Present Discourses of Developmental Disability 10:50-10:55 Discussion

4.5 10:55-11:10: Lal Zimman, University of Colorado, Boulder, Language Socialization as a Life-Long Process: Gender Change across the Individual Lifespan 11:10-11:15 Discussion

11:15-11:20 General Discussion

11:20-1:00 Lunch (Tentative Menu: Sandwiches)

Session 5: International Perspectives on Changes in Language and Culture 5.1 1:00-1:30: Stephen Pax Leonard, University of Cambridge, Social and Linguistic Identity Construction in the North Atlantic: The Case of Iceland 1:30-1:35 Discussion

5.2 1:35-1:55: Elizabeth R. Vann, Brockton Public Schools, Linguistic Generations/ Linguistic Generation in Silesia, Poland: The Importance of History in Understanding the Observed Moment 1:55-2:00 Discussion

5.3 2:00-2:20: Madeleine Adkins, University of Colorado, Boulder, Will the Real Breton Please Stand Up?: Language Revitalization and the Problem of Authentic Language 2:20-2:25 Discussion

Break 2:20-2:35

5.4 2:35-2:55: Bernard Bate, Yale University, Bharati and the Tamil Modern 2:55-3:00 Discussion

5.5 3:00-3:20: Jessica Boynton, University of Western Australia, Wangkatha Language Ideologies: Perspectives on Australian Language Endangerment 3:20-3:25 Discussion

3:25-3:30 General Discussion

Break 3:30-4:00

4:00-5:00 General Discussion: Future of Language, Culture and History Studies?

SATURDAY, JULY 3

8:30-9:00 Coffee

Session 6: Variations in Muslim Identity 6.1 9:00-9:20: Camelia Suleiman, Bryn Mawr College, Debates of Arabic Diglossia and visions of citizenship 9:20-9:25 Discussion

6.2 9:25-9:45: Susanne Stadlbauer, University of Colorado, Boulder, The Conflicting Constructions of Historicity in the Narratives of Female Muslim 9:45-9:50 Discussion

6.3 9:50-10:10: Anne Bennett, California State University San Bernardino, Heritage Arabic Learners in the Inland Empire, Southern California 10:10-10:15 Discussion

6.4 10:15-10:35: Inga Ghutidze, Ilia State University, Georgia, Toward the Pecularity of Lexical Borrowings in Ethnic Georgians Speech in Turkey 10:35-10:40 Discussion

10:40-10:45 General Discussion

10:45-11:00 Break

Session 7: American Sign Language History and Variation 7.1 11:00-11:20: Stormy M. Iverson, University of California, Los Angeles, A Historical Overview of Ideologies of Deafness 11:20-11:25 Discussion

7.2 11:25-11:45: Cindee Calton, University of Iowa, In Defense of American Sign Language: How the Need to Defend ASL’s Linguistic Status has Shaped Research on ASL 11:45-11:50 Discussion

7.3 11:50-12:10: Todd Corbett, University of Wyoming, A Personal History of the Recognition of Sign Language in Wyoming 12:10-12:15 Discussion

12:15-12:30 General Discussion and Farewells

Door Kim Knibbe

Mensen geloofden kinderen niet, of wilden hen niet geloven. Kinderen dachten dat ze zelf schuldig waren, en zondig, moesten hun zonden opbiechten. Het zou alleen maar gaan om ‘incidenten’. Priesters en paters werden overgeplaatst, maar nooit bij de politie aangegeven.

De katholieke wereld tot ongeveer halverwege de jaren zestig van deze eeuw heeft veel mensen opgezadeld met trauma’s die individueel bewaarde geheimen werden. Niet alleen wat betreft seksueel misbruik en mishandeling in internaten, maar ook de ‘schande’ van doodgeboren of vroeg gestorven babies die niet in gewijde grond zijn begraven, vrouwen die de communie werd geweigerd omdat ze geen kinderen meer wilden krijgen, families die zelfdoding moesten verzwijgen, of het kloosterverleden van een uitgetreden familie-lid. In veel gevallen wisten (weten) familieleden van elkaar niet welke geheimen men meedroeg. Nog steeds overheerst bij veel mensen van de oudere generaties individuele schaamte, in plaats van publieke woede over structureel onrecht.

Het feit dat dit soort gebeurtenissen ondraaglijke geheimen werden voor individuele mensen, is een illustratie van de macht die de clerus had in die jaren. Tegelijkertijd waren dit ‘publieke geheimen’, iedereen wist dat dit voorkwam en welk leed eraan verbonden was. Zoals onlangs bekend werd gemaakt, was de clerus zelf maar al te goed op de hoogte van de misstappen van sommigen onder hen, en het leed dat kinderen werd aangedaan. Machtsmisbruik in allerlei vormen was onvermijdelijk in de setting van internaten en er is intern veel discussie geweest over hoe dat veranderd zou moeten worden. Dat individuele hooggeplaatsten zoals de paus en bisschop van Luyn nu uit de wind worden gehouden doet daar niets aan af, het systeem was erop gericht misbruik binnenskamers te houden en die hoogeplaatsten waren gewoon deel van dat systeem, zoals Küng terecht stelt.

Ironisch genoeg is een punt van discussie nu opnieuw het celibaat: sommigen (vooral progressieve katholiekenzoals Küng en Oosterhuis) geven de schuld aan het celibaat, terwijl anderen juist signaleren dat in de tijd waarin de meeste meldingen zijn, de jaren zestig, er een brede herbezinning plaatsvondt met betrekking tot de doctrines van de kerk met betrekking tot seksualiteit. De katholieke zuil bevond zich middenin een eigen seksuele revolutie.

Als die seksuele revolutie binnen de zuil heeft geleid tot een grotere drang tot experimenteren en een grotere permissiviteit jegens misstappen tussen geestelijken onderling, dan is dat een pijnlijk inzicht juist voor progressieve katholieken, maar een inzicht dat niet mag worden tegen gehouden. Het is niet ondenkbaar, ook door het feminisme zijn de gedachten over seksualiteit in die tijd aangemerkt als schadelijk want blind voor machtsverschillen en dus vooral lekker voor mannen. De reflex van progressieve katholieken en sommigen buitenstaanders om alle misstanden aan het celibaat te weiten moet genuanceerd worden. Het gaat ook om andere noodzakelijke structurele veranderingen om machtsmisbruik (waarvan seksueel misbruik een vorm is) te voorkomen in de toekomst. Gaan die er komen?

Het feit dat de kerk heeft besloten (en relatief snel!) tot het instellen van een onderzoekscommissie met een onafhankelijke voorzitter is een geweldige stap. Men zou dit cynisch kunnen interpreteren als de enige mogelijke stap in deze situatie, in het licht van de schandalen die in andere landen de kerk in het nauw hebben gedreven. Men zou dit ook kunnen zien als een eerste stap richting meer openheid, een besef dat de slachtoffers recht moet worden gedaan ook als de misdaden waarvan zij het slachtoffer zijn geweest al verjaard zijn, en een revolutie in de houding van het instituut van de kerk jegens de samenleving.

De vraag is of de kerk als instituut ook daadwerkelijk de rechten van niet-geestelijken beter zal gaan beschermen. De staat van dienst van de instelling Hulp en Recht hierin is niet bevredigend, en ook in andere landen heeft het nogal wat gekost om de kerk te dwingen aandacht te schenken aan de rechten van de slachtoffers. En waar kunnen slachtoffers terecht die niet via Hulp en Recht hun verhaal aan de commissie Deetman willen geven? De kerk heeft eigen wetten,  maar het lijkt erop dat ‘leken’ maar weinig rechten hebben tegenover geestelijken, zeker waar het gaat om strafbare zaken.

Maar dan zijn er nog altijd de wetten van het land, die elke burger (zou moeten) beschermen. En dat doet de vraag rijsen: waar was de overheid in die tijd? Was er geen schoolinspectie? Zijn de slachoffers van seksueel misbruik in de kerk niet ook de slachtoffers van de verzuiling, het compromis tussen religieus pluralisme en de staat voortgekomen uit (onder andere) de schoolstrijd, waardoor de staat zoveel mogelijk overliet aan de zuilen? En moet de kerk niet haar eigen regels aanpassen, waardoor zij verplicht wordt om gevallen van seksueel misbruik te melden bij de politie(met inachtneming van de belangen van het slachtoffer uiteraard)? Mijn hoop is dat de commissie Deetman ook aandacht zal hebben voor de vraag wat de verhouding moet zijn tussen de wetten van de kerk, en de Nederlandse rechtsstaat.

The article proposal deadline for the September and October issues of Anthropology News is fast approaching. September will address anthropology education and October will address disaster relief and recovery. For the full CFPs with theme descriptions, see our website. We welcome proposals for In Focus commentaries, Teaching Strategies, Field Notes articles, photo essays, news stories, interviews and more!

To participate, email a 300-word abstract and 50-100-word biosketch to Anthropology News editor Dinah Winnick (dwinnick [at] aaanet.org) by March 25. Proposals for photo essays should also include five high resolution photographs (tiff or jpg), each with a caption and credit. Selected authors will be notified of their status in early April, and full articles—commentaries of 1000-1400 words or shorter pieces for other article types—will be due in early May.

Proposal submission deadline: March 25, 2010

Filed under: Publications

Human Terrain System Under Investigation: HTS Link to JIEDDO & US Death Squads

by John Stanton

18 March 2010

“According to several government and civilian sources, [Michael] Furlong’s operation was funded under a $24.6 million contract by the Defense Department’s Joint IED Defeat Organization [JIEDDO], which was set up early in the Iraq war to combat insurgents’ roadside bombs. His operation was part of a larger military information program, called Capstone”, Karen DeYoung, Washington Post.

Before linking JIEDDO to Furlong’s program, it’s worth noting that the US Army Human Terrain System is in the midst of an Army 15-6 investigation. According to sources one area the investigator is looking at is the “management/leadership side and fraudulent time and attendance records.” Many in the program have high hopes for positive change.

Cultural Operations Research – Human Terrain System (COR-HTS) — now simply HTS — was originally funded by the Joint Improvised Explosive Device Defeat Organization (JIEDDO). Coincidently, JIEDDO was formerly under the command of Steve Fondacaro, who now runs the turbulent HTS program. JIEDDO received a punishing audit by the Government Accountability Office.

The GAO described JIEDDO as an ad hoc organization that did not identify, track or report all contractor personnel, and sorely lacked accounting controls. Those activities allegedly have found their way into the HTS program.

The Washington Post was correct on its JIEDDO findings and JIEDDO was a good place to bury Furlong’s program. Furlong confirmed the funding for his effort came through JIEDDO.

Sanlian Lifeweek

Pu Shi, a journalist for Sanlian Lifeweek Magazine in Beijing, has requested contact information for HTS personnel. The purpose is to explore issues associated with the alleged US government sponsorship of a private contractor assassin program allegedly run by Robert Furlong formerly of STRATCOM. Contractors perform every military task imaginable (even Personnel Recovery) so what’s the rub with hiring them to kill/capture undesirables?

At any rate, Pu Shi found this email address cioran123@yahoo.com (mine) in a message string at Men’s Journal. ”I found this email address at this website in the hope of finding Dr. Steve Fondacaro and staff [at] HTS. Please forward the email to Dr. Steve Fondacaro at your convenience.”

Famed journalist/author Robert Young Pelton had written an article on the Human Terrain System in February 2009 for MJ that caused a bit of controversy and a considerable amount of discussion. Steve Fondacaro, Program Manager of HTS, and Montgomery McFate, Senior Social Scientist, were incensed about the story and wrote to Men’s Journal questioning Pelton’s professionalism. One point of contention was Pelton’s assertion that the information collected by HTS could be used for a variety of purposes by US Army Brigade Commanders. One such use of that information is as intelligence that ultimately makes its way into the Kill Chain.

Pelton was absolutely correct on that point. But why does Pelton think his information was immune to finding its way into the Kill Chain? Given his survivalist background, it is extraordinarily difficult to accept that he was “tricked” by a 56 year old bureaucrat in the USA.

Pu Shi requested an interview with “Dr.” Steve Fondacaro and “staff” at HTS. That request was received on 16 March 2010 at roughly 6:45 PM (Eastern). I responded by pointing out that using me as a circuit to get to Mr. Fondacaro was ill-advised. But I did provide Pu Shi with the link to the Contact section of the HTS.mil website. I also offered other resources on HTS (pro-con) and suggested looking at the Washington Post’s coverage of the Furlong matter.

Four Questions for HTS Management

“To whom it may concern, I am a Chinese journalist working with Sanlian Lifeweek, one of the most widely circulated weekly magazines in China with 300,000 readers per week in more than 30 Chinese big cities. It is published by Sanlian Publishing House of China Publishing Group. Sanlian Publishing House was founded in the 1930s and is one of China’s largest publishing houses of long history. One of our topics this week is Mr. Michael D. Furlong’s private intelligence network and the role private contractors play in intelligence gathering in Afghanistan. We would really appreciate if he could kindly share your opinions with us. The interview questions are as follows, for his reference:

1. How and why has the former Army official, Michael D. Furlong’s private security network come into the attention of C.I.A. and the media? Does the surface of this episode imply some of the problems with intelligence work in Afghanistan and Pakistan?

2. Mr. Furlong is said, according American officials, to be using the network to gather intelligence to target militants and the location of insurgent camps, and the information was then sent military units and intelligence officials for possible lethal action in Afghanistan and Pakistan. And the top military told the N.Y.Times that the intelligence collection is originally intended to gain a deeper understanding of the country and society. How is intelligence gathering targeted at militants and targeted at understanding a country different? How do you think Mr. Furlong’s work can be identified as tracking and killing militants?

3. What role do private contractors and companies play in intelligence gathering in Afghanistan, Pakistan, Iraq and by large, in wars? Where is the line between the field of professional contractors and journalists and the field of military intelligence?

4. It seems that there have been frictions between the army and the freelancers in Afghanistan for long. What is behind these frictions?

Our press time is on Sunday midnight (we are 12-13 hours ahead of you). We would really appreciate if he could accept our interview. Thank you very much and we anticipate your reply!”

A Thousand Flowers Blossom From JIEDDO/HTS Efforts

This item appeared in a 2009 publication by the Rapid Reaction Technology Office titled Experimentation and Rapid Prototyping in Support of Counterterrorism. Note that many aspects of HTS are being used for intelligence purposes. Many within HTS have argued all along that HTS is an intelligence effort.

Quoting directly from the publication:

SKOPE is a joint intelligence cell with the National Geospatial-Intelligence Agency (NGA), SOCOM, and the U.S. Strategic Command (STRATCOM). It began with a specific request for sensors to help narrow the search space for terrorists and terror groups. The RRTO recommended the development of the SKOPE approach and was the sole funding source for the initial operating capability of the analytic cell. Currently the RRTO is developing new tools in response to specific requests from commanders based on the success and experience with this operational capability.

The SKOPE cell applies all-source, multi-intelligence analysis linked to a spot on Earth. Through its application of human terrain analysis, SKOPE incorporates aspects of the Human Terrain System (HTS), a new proof-of-concept program run by the U.S. Army Training and Doctrine Command and serving the joint community. The near-term focus of the HTS program is to improve the ability of the military to understand the highly complex, local sociocultural environment in areas of deployment. In the long term however, it is hoped that HTS will assist the U.S. government in understanding foreign countries and regions prior to an engagement within a region. According to the Army Web site, the HTS program represents the first time that social science research and advising have been done systematically, on a large scale, and at the brigade level.

[MF: For more, see the recently updated list of intelligence companies involved with HTS: Mapping the Terrain of War Corporatism: The Human Terrain System within the Military-Industrial-Academic Complex]

John Stanton is a Virginia based writer specializing in political and national security matters. Reach him at cioran123@yahoo.com

Filed under: INTRODUCTION Tagged: China, HTS, HTT, Human Terrain System, JIEDDO, John Stanton, Mike Furlong, Rapid Reaction Technology Office, Robert Young Pelton, Steve Fondacaro

Thanks to the folks at the Anthropology Review Database, especially David Eller for his thoughtful review of my book, Aboriginal Business: Alliances in a Remote Australian Town. Most wonderful for me was that he noticed my “cleverly and alliteratively” named titles (it’s those little things that kept me going through the years of writing…!). In addition, his comment at the end of his review that, “I have to admit that the end of Aboriginal Business left me just a little emotional, which is hard to say about a lot of anthropological writing” is one of the best compliments I have ever received!! Writing Aboriginal Business I set out consciously to write in a style that was accessible and narrative driven without giving up on the theoretical argumentation of the book. It’s nice to know that in some small way I achieved that