The Anthropology Of Genocide - WNLibrary

342 critical reflections
port across ethnic groups. Leo Kuper (1981:188–89) suggests that genocide does
not occur in societies in which: (a) differences among racial, ethnic, or religious
groups are either insignificant or not a source of deadly conflict; (b) there is willingness
on the part of the dominant sectors to accept strangers and offer them
access to the resources of society; (c) the rights of minorities are legally guaranteed;
(d) there are complex webs of social relations or voluntary groups that crosscut
perceived racial, religious, or ethnic differences; or (e) there is balanced accommodation
between recognized groups such that there is at least an attempt
to share power, as for example among blacks, whites, and colored in South Africa,
or Catholics and Protestants in Northern Ireland. Other social constraints against
genocide might include a high level of development, a vocal and more or less unfettered
media, and citizen groups that are able to publicize injustices and oppose
violence against minorities (Andreopoulos 1994). 19
In the global south the overt and subtexual rationales for the repression of minorities
is often to ensure “development” that ostensibly benefits the majority, to
seize political control from a rival ethnic group, to preserve cultural or religious
traditions, or to eliminate class enemies. Although “development” does not appear
on the surface to be an issue in the United States, it may need to be taken
into account when discussing the human rights of Latino migrants and immigrants.
The disparity in the economic situations of Mexico and the United States
that motivates many migrants to cross the border, as well as the ongoing demand
for Mexican labor power in the United States, is a development issue. On the other
hand, the media in the United States is as free as anywhere in the world. Further,
there are numerous Latino organizations and voluntary groups, civic associations,
and political parties that include Latinos (and other minorities), and Latinos play
a growing role in national politics. Although there is an apparent declining readiness
to accept strangers in the United States and to offer them access to all the resources
of society, differences among “racial” and ethnic groups have not resulted
in sustained deadly conflict. Even though the legal guarantees of the rights of minorities
have come under increasing threat in the United States, they have not
been eliminated. Finally, some portion of the general public, at least in California,
favors a new amnesty for migrants.
We can easily conclude that the United States is not on the verge of committing
or tolerating the widespread and systematic abuse of minorities, a first step in
the direction of genocide. The presence of symbolic violence toward migrants in
general and Latinos in particular in the border region suggests a potential, not yet
and, it is hoped, never to be realized. Nonetheless the treatment of immigrants/migrants
should alert us to the potential for escalations of human rights
abuses, especially if international development issues are not addressed and if political
processes are perceived as fundamentally flawed. Acknowledging the importance
of symbolic violence and taking steps to alleviate it may help human rights
monitors prevent genocidal behavior before its actual advent (Dugger 1996; Kuper
1981, 1985; Kapferer 1988). However, it is only a first step.