The Anthropology Of Genocide - WNLibrary

56 modernity’s edges
treatment to some individuals and groups. There were also anthropologists who
sought to warn indigenous peoples and governments of the potential risks of various
policies and programs. Anthropologists have long sought to influence policies
aimed at the development of pastoral peoples, for example, and they have warned
against the harm of large-scale infrastructure projects such as large dams (Sanford
1983; World Commission on Dams 2000). Anthropologists and other social scientists
told U.S. and U.N. agencies of the potential for violence in places such as
Rwanda, Somalia, and Sierra Leone. Had these warnings been heeded, the number
of people who died and the huge costs of postconflict intervention could have
been reduced, or the tragedies even possibly prevented.
Increasingly, anthropologists are collaborating with people from other disciplines
in looking at genocide-related issues. This can be seen in the work of archaeologists
on forensic teams made up of doctors, lawyers, and criminologists who have
investigated massacres and disappearances in places as far afield as Argentina,
Guatemala, Rwanda, and the former Yugoslavia (Stover and Peress 1998; Neier
1998:8–11). It can also be seen in the efforts by anthropologists to develop curricula
on human rights and genocide that can be used in courses at the secondary and
postsecondary levels.
Anthropologists have worked extensively in complex field situations, often seeing
firsthand the violence that can and sometimes does lead to genocide (Nordstrom
and Robben 1995). Anthropologists along with psychologists, sociologists, historians,
and political scientists have identified some of the preconditions of genocide, including
the exclusion of people identified as being “different” from what Fein (1994)
calls “the universe of obligation.” By focusing on issues such as racism, sexism, ethnocentrism,
nationalism, fundamentalism, and anti-Semitism, anthropologists and
other social scientists and educators have contributed to efforts to discredit ideologies
and perspectives that lead to differential treatment of groups and individuals.
The balance of this chapter addresses issues relating to indigenous peoples and
genocide, the definitions of genocide and ethnocide, typologies of genocide, especially
as they relate to indigenous peoples, strategies for coping with genocide, including
prediction, intervention, and advocacy, and the varied roles of the discipline
of anthropology as it relates to genocide and ethnocide issues. The conclusion
of the paper deals with the importance of education as a means of dealing with
genocide, ethnocide, and human rights violations.
INDIGENOUS PEOPLES AND GENOCIDE
Indigenous peoples are those people who are also referred to as aboriginal peoples,
native peoples, tribal peoples, Fourth World peoples, or “first nations.” No single
agreed-upon definition of the term indigenous peoples exists. According to the Independent
Commission on International Humanitarian Issues (1987:6), four elements
are included in the definition of indigenous peoples: (a) pre-existence, (b) nondominance,
(c) cultural difference, and (d) self-identification as indigenous. Today,