Anthropologys war growth, changed paradigm

Hunting with locals for wild pig, supper.

Anthropology's war growth,

challenged paradigm.

By Gerald anthropologist Think Tank

This is a rebuttal to analysis of the use of anthropology in war.

Anthropology has a guilty conscience, the history of anthropology includes

involvement in genocide, supporting neocolonial politics and bad things.

This collective guilt memory of anthropologist triggers a strong

reactionary complex, not fully understanding how the brotherhood

could have gone so far wrong.

And a almost genetic fear of repeating the egregious error of their

fore fathers.

This fear seems to prevent them from acknowledging that evil

exists, and there is no moral imperative to protect evil.

The current general anthropological paradigm is in error

and erring on the side of over caution, as some mistaken

form of penance for anthropology's past deeds.

MY REBUTTAL IN CAPS FOR EASE OF READING.

GERALD

Dahr Jamail recent article on this site I have described HTS as comprising American scholars, primarily in the field of anthropology, along with sociologists and social psychologists, embedding themselves with the US military in the occupations of Iraq and Afghanistan.

FIGHTING AGAINST EVIL IS NOT AND DOES NOT COMPRISE AMERICAN SCHOLARS.

The US military would like the US public to believe it is a benevolent program, but it does not require a crystal ball to recognize the insidious reality. HTS teams actively engage in targeting the "enemy" in Iraq and Afghanistan. Team members often wear military uniforms and body armor, and even carry weapons. Like Ms. Roberts, they are not overly concerned about the fact that the "intelligence" they produce is instrumental in capturing and killing people.

NOT PEOPLE BUT TERRORISTS. FAILING TO MAKE THIS DISTINCTION IS IN EFFECT PUTTING BLINDERS ON ANTHROPOLOGISTS. AND TWISTING THE ANTHRO PARADIGM. ANTHROPOLOGY HAS NO OBLIGATION TO

PROTECT EVIL.

The social scientists who choose to employ themselves within HTS clearly are not having a moral struggle with the fact that they are allowing their knowledge to be used as a weapon of war.

GERMAN ANTHROPOLOGIST WORKED FOR THE NAZIS EVIL FINAL SOLUTION IN WWII.

ANTHROPOLOGIST WORKING AGAINST AL QAEDA IS AN ENTIRELY DIFFERENT PROPOSITION.

THE CURRENT ANTHRO PARADIGM VIEWS ALL WAR AS EVIL, HENCE THEIR MORAL DILEMMA.

I HAVE NO RESERVATIONS ABOUT USING MY ANTHROPOLOGICAL SKILLS AGAINST AL QAEDA.

TO FIGHT EVIL IS THE MORAL THING TO DO.

The two highest ethical principles of anthropology are protection of the interests of studied populations, and their safety. All anthropological studies consequently are premised on the consent of the subject society. Clearly, the HTS anthropologists have thrown these ethical guidelines out the window.

THE ABOVE STATEMENT IS A BASTARDIZATION OF ANTHROPOLOGY WALLOWING IN GUILT.

THEY WOULD HAVE PROTECTED AND WORKED IN THE INTERESTS OF THE NAZIS?

WORKED FOR THE SAFETY OF THE NAZIS?

THEY ARE ADVOCATING WORKING TO PROTECT AL QAEDA.

THIS IS ACADEMIC DISHONESTY, AND SHOWS A LACK OF TRUST IN THE ANTHROPOLOGY

BROTHERHOOD TO DISTINGUISH GOOD FROM EVIL, OF COURSE ANTHROPOLOGY

WAS GUILTY OF WORKING FOR EVIL IN THE PAST.

THE BIG QUESTION IS HAS ANTHROPOLOGY GROWN ENOUGH NOW TO MAKE

AVOID THE SAME MISTAKES. THE CURRENT PARADIGM SOME ANTHROPOLOGIST

THINK NOT.

The mission of the Human Terrain social scientists gains legitimacy and credibility when expressed in terms of engineering the "trust of the indigenous population."

THIS IS MISLEADING PROPAGANDA, THE MISSION IS WINNING THE HEARTS AND MINDS WITH THE TRUTH,

EXPLAINING THE OTHER SIDE THROUGH WORD AND DEED. NOT LETTING THE TERRORIST LIES STAND UNCHALLENGED. GAINING TRUST THROUGH HONESTY AND TRUTH.

Price avers, "The problem with anthropology being used in counterinsurgency isn't just that anthropologists are helping the military to wear different cultural skins; the problem is that it finds anthropologists using bio power and basic infrastructure as bargaining chips to force occupied cultures to surrender."

AGAIN MORE BULL SHIT, AND THE WORDING EXPOSES THE LEFTEST AGENDA, WHICH HAS NO PLACE IN THE

ANTHRO PARADIGM. THERE IS NO FORCING AN OCCUPIED CULTURE TO SURRENDER.

THE GOAL IS TO EMPOWER THE CULTURE TO GROW VOID OF AL QAEDA'S TERRORISM BASED VIOLENCE.

THE LACK OF ACADEMIC HONESTY IN THAT STATEMENT IS APPALLING.

Although he says it is too soon to gauge [a] possible increase in HTS operations since Obama took office, Price is convinced that the president is falling for the claim that a smart counterinsurgency can lead not just to easier occupations, but to victory.

THE AUTHOR HERE IS EXPOSING HIS HIDDEN AGENDA, VICTORY IS

BRINGING ENOUGH TROOPS TO PROTECT THE POPULATION FROM THE TERRORIST

FOR THE INDIGENOUS TO BUILD A FORCE TO PROTECT THEMSELVES AGAINST THE TERRORISTS.

THE AUTHORS DEFINITION SEEMS TO IMPLY SOME EVIL IN VICTORY. THE EVIL IS IN HIS OWN MIND.

VICTORY IS BUILDING THE LOCAL CULTURE TO STAND AGAINST

THE TERRORIST, ON THEIR OWN, AND SUPPORTING THEM TILL

THEY CAN.

For the military to find regionally competent anthropologists to work for them is unlikely. Price is convinced that, "most (American) anthropologists understand the obvious ethical problems in working for HTS. The real risk lies in the likelihood that anthropologists will be seduced by arguments to support soft-power projects tied to occupation and counterinsurgency - especially when these projects are increasingly being presented as "helping" the occupied.

THE ABOVE STATEMENT IS FILLED WITH FALSE ASSUMPTIONS, IT MAKES IT SOUND THAT WORKING

AGAINST EVIL IS BAD, LIKE THE ANTHROPOLOGIST ARE DUMMIES, NOT CAPABLE OF SPOTTING

ANY ETHICAL PROBLEMS AND WORKING THROUGH THEM USING THE ANTHROPOLOGICAL TOOLS

THEY USE EVERY DAY PROFESSIONALLY, THE AUTHOR IS STATING HIS LACK OF FAITH IN ANTHROPOLOGY

AND ANTHROPOLOGIST BASED ON HIS HISTORICAL GUILT, THEY MADE A MISTAKE IN THE PAST,

DON'T GIVE THEM ANOTHER CHANCE TO ERROR AGAIN.

WHILE I EXPECT ERRORS AND PROBLEMS WITH ANTHROPOLOGIST I HAVE THE UTMOST CONFIDENCE IN ANTHROPOLOGY.

As the new administration adopts less-violent manipulations of the environments and peoples in Iraq and Afghanistan, Price is concerned that anthropologists will fail to see the distinction between military coercion of occupied peoples and publicized acts of "humanitarianism."

I THINK EVEN THE MOST UNEDUCATED INDIGENOUS POPULATION CAN TELL THE DIFFERENCE

BETWEEN ACTS OF HUMANITARIANISM AND MILITARY COERCION, AND I HAVE THE CONFIDENCE

THAT ANTHROPOLOGIST WILL ALSO.

Corporate media coverage of the program conveniently does not indicate that HTS ignores basic anthropological principles of ethics, such as voluntary informed consent, issues of secrecy, and doing no harm, among others. Most anthropologists concur with Price that HTS is also part of a domestic propaganda project, "that tells the Americans that wars for the hearts and minds of the people of Iraq and Afghanistan can be won. History argues against any such outcome, but HTS becomes part of a lie to the American people that helps keep us fighting these already lost causes. It is so poorly designed that HTS has no hope of actually working as advertised, yet both the Bush and Obama administrations have sold us a false hope that such counterinsurgency programs can lead to an eventual victory."

ONCE AGAIN THE AUTHORS HAVE DELINEATED ANTHROPOLOGY TO THE VERY NARROWEST DEFINITION OF ANTHROPOLOGY. THAT OF ACADEMIC STUDY. THE WORK OF FIELD APPLIED ANTHROPOLOGY HAS NO SUCH

NARROW DEFINITION. THERE IS NO OBLIGATION TO PROTECT EVIL, DEFEND EVIL, OR DO NO HARM TO EVIL.

USING THEIR DEFINITION THEY WOULD NOT STOP A NUCLEAR ATTACK ON USA USING ANTHROPOLOGY BECAUSE

IT MIGHT BE A VIOLATION OF ETHICS, OF FEAR OF DOING HARM TO AL QAEDA.

THE RANGE, SCOPE AND POWER OF ANTHROPOLOGY IS SUCH THAT IT CANNOT IGNORE ITS RESPONSIBILITY

TO ACT AGAINST EVIL, TO PROTECT THOSE WHO CANNOT PROTECT THEMSELVES, TO OPPOSE EVIL.

IT HAS AN OBLIGATION TO ACT NOT STAND ON THE SIDELINES HAND WRINGING OVER PAST ERRORS.

I am left to wonder how anthropologist Ann Dunham, Barack Obama's mother, would have reacted to her son's reliance on such clearly unethical anthropological means to achieve political ends so aligned with neocolonialist goals of occupation and subjugation?"

I THINK ANN DUNHAM WOULD BE VERY PROUD OF ANTHROPOLOGYS PLACE IN FACING OFF EVIL,

IN ENGAGING EVIL TO PROTECT THE INNOCENT AND FACING UP TO THE PROBLEMS OF THE PAST

AND GROWING BEYOND THEM.

THERE ARE NO GOALS OF NEOCOLONIALISM OR SUBJUGATION IN USA.

YOUR LEFTEST AGENDA IS SHOWING.

IF I CAN HELP PROTECT AFGHAN OR PAKI VILLAGERS FROM

SUBJUGATION BY THE TALIBAN OR AL QUADA BY LURING

EVIL AL QAEDA OR TALIBAN INTO A FIELD OF FIRE WHERE

THEY ARE KILLED BECAUSE I USED ANTHROPOLOGY I WILL DO SO,

EVIL...

KILLING THOSE THAT BOMB MARKET PLACES, MOSQUES,

KILLING WOMEN AND CHILDREN AND OTHER MUSLIMS,

BEHEADING AND USING SUICIDE BOMBERS IS CLEARLY

EVIL, AND I AM MEETING MY MORAL OBLIGATIONS BY

USING ALL MY SKILLS TO STOP THEM. THEY HAVE STATED

THEY WOULD USE A NUKE AGAINST AMERICA IF THEY COULD.

ANTHROPOLOGY HAS AN ETHICAL OBLIGATION TO MAKE THE

WORLD SAFER, BETTER, NOT JUST STUDY THE SLAUGHTER.

I KNOW WHERE MY MORAL OBLIGATIONS STAND AND

I AM CLEAR ABOUT MY ETHICS.

GERALD

ANTHROPOLOGIST

AD MAGNUM

.

Visit Dahr Jamail's website http://dahrjamailiraq.com

Google blog still not taking labels???