Intro to Anthropology 2/22/10

Looking at Post Cold War conflicts - break up of Yugoslavia, Africa - labeled as "tribal warfare"Tribe = problematic, loaded term implying not quite civilized form of government.Civil War (USA) vs. “Tribal War” (Rwanda) = not quite at our level of sophistication of warfare, seen as primitive

Location where centralized authority makes contact with people it doesn’t rule. A lot being written about colonial times, colonial peoples coming into contact with people it doesn’t rule (yet) Disruption of existing sociopolitical relationships, new conflicts emerge. Formation of tribes and intensification of conflict/war. Tribes form in response to colonial contact – colonists thought it was the type of organization they had always had

Colonists establish trading post in Native American territory, make a pact with the Native Americans that if you give us hides we will give you guns, encourages people to go out and get buffalo, people band together in order to monopolize trade

Tribal wars represent violent outbursts of ancient animosities (“they have always hate each other”). Tribal wars are driven by ethnic hatred/rivalry, not by economic factors. Tribal wars are initiated from within, not in response to outside forces.

Tribal wars often reaction to colonial presence. Tribal wars often fought for monopolistic control over space around places of trade, other resources of value. Tribal wars often used as justification for further colonial expansion.

Examines former Yugoslavia breaking up, conflict in Rwanda between the Tutsis and the HutusQuestions the media's portrayal of tribal warfare as a rising trendPoint of Article: Colonial legacy of creating rigid ethnic categories, privileging some groups over others Political choices to dominate other groups rather than cooperate with them Driven from the top by leaders who negatively stereotype other groups in order to monopolize power and resources Compelling argument than this is rooted in colonial rule

Ethnic identity is ancient and unchanging (a primordialist view). A lot of people look at ethnicity as fixed in past, thousands of years people understand their ethnic identity, all about ancient hatred Ethnic identities motivate people to kill and persecute others. Idea that ethnic differences primary motivation Ethnic diversity inevitably leads to inter-ethnic violence.

No, improper assumption. Assuming that ethnic conflict = ethnic hatred has several repercussions: Implies ethnic conflicts engaged in by those who are less modern and rational, more primitive (irrational) and tribal (savage). Implies that violence is natural characteristic of some ethnic groups, ignores that violence is consequence of political processes and actions ("this ethnic group is naturally violent, therefore expect behavior from them")

Pre-colonial (Africa example): ethnic/tribal identity rarely important in everyday life. Identity related to birthplace, lineage, wealth status Identities fluid, could change through mobility and within a lifetime Colonial powers and post-colonial states formed more rigid “ethnic identities”. Categorizing for control (census) – categorizing leads to more rigid existence Privileging for indirect rule (e.g. Tutsi, Sinhalese) – priviledge one ethnic group over another

1994 - massive genocide Prior to 1960s when most nations attained liberation, the entire African continent was split into European colonial territories, each colony being exploited for goods Belgians controlled Rwanda Tutsis and Hutus (pre-colonial) Spoke same language Practiced same religion Frequently intermarried Fluid categories (Hutus could become Tutsis and vicea versa)
Belgian colonialists created “racial” distinction (Tutsis taller, smarter – had more cattle, wealthier). Fluid identities were solidified through government organs of control Identity solidified through census/identity cards (fixed people’s identity as one or the other). Tutsis privileged for indirect rule. Colonial discrimination created Hutu identity and created Hutu cause (identity fixed, became marginalized). Extreme violence broke out, one croup pitted against the other Post colonial independence Struggle for power Tutsi/Hutu competition Role of leaders in demonizing the other Identity basis of who to kill (1994) Hutus killing Tutsis

Different religion (Hindu/Buddhist), different language, different culture yet coexisted for centuries. In order to rule, British colonialists: “relied on hardened and artificial notion of ethnic boundaries.” “created new social groups and identified them by ethnic, religious, or regional categories.”British took two ethnic groups, solidified their identities by saying which one was better than the other Post-ColonialismColonial administrators created strong notions of Tamil/Sinhalese identities.Colonial administrators created Tamil cause by establishing system that discriminated, economically marginalized them.Tamils responded by creating LTTE in 1976 (Liberation Tigers of Tamil Eelam) – very bloody war that ended in 2009.

Occur in response to colonial and post colonial policies that create shared interestsSeek political autonomy - marginalized ethnic group demands access to education/jobs, control over local resourcesConflicts are NOT caused by ancient ethnic or tribal loyalties but rather by colonial rule Conflicts are about asserting group identity to counter dominance marginalization

Ethnicity used by leaders to mobilize people. Step 1: Instill sense of ethnic hatred through propaganda (Rwanda, Serbia, Sri Lanka). Create atmosphere of distrust Create mythologies of difference Step 2: Encourage/coerce people to participate in persecution.

No, not necessarily - it involves political choices. Countries where one ethnic group controls and dominates others are more prone to violence (Sri Lanka, Rwanda) Countries where power is dispersed among ethnic groups are less prone to violence (Malaysia, Indonesia) – even though both are formal colonies who had their people categorized by colonial rules, when power dispersed conflict does not as easily arise

Article about Disney World - illustrates how formal and informal means of social control are built into the entire theme park system“Control strategies are embedded in both environmental features and structural relations." (i.e. controlled entry into park, control mechanisms to parking – trolleys patrolling, maximizing parking spaces)Minimize disorder by – constant instruction, physical barriers, employee surveillancePark is carefully regulated space, embedded features of the landscape – fences on gardens, control where people walk and don’t walkEmbedded Control – effects not noticed, veiled, presence unnoticed, effects ever presentProps and Characters as Agents of Social ControlControl becomes consensual. (People working at Disney and parents work together in order to insure happiness on both ends, parents understand that you have to be able to conform to the rules of the park in order to have a good experience overall)Inducing coercion by “depriving visitors of a resource they value.”Argument: “people today are seduced to conform by the pleasures of consuming the goods that corporate power has to offer.”