The Anthropology Of Genocide - WNLibrary

confronting genocide of indigenous peoples 71
neighbors rather than engaging in intergroup conflict. Indeed, there is mounting evidence
that indicates that indigenous warfare increased significantly as a result of
European expansionism (Ferguson and Whitehead 1992). Judging from the archaeological
record, intergroup conflicts were much more common among state systems
and settled agriculturalists than was the case among foragers. This should not be
taken to mean, however, that genocide was primarily a product of sedentism, agriculture,
and the rise of the state. Certainly early foragers had the skills, technology,
and presumably the desire to eliminate other people in competitive situations.
Another context in which genocides and massive human rights violations against
indigenous peoples occur is where efforts are made to promote social and economic
development, often characterized as being “in the national interest.” Sometimes
called developmental genocides, these kinds of actions occur when states, agencies,
companies, or transnational corporations oppress local peoples during the course
of implementing various kinds of development projects.
All too frequently, local people have been killed or forced out of development project
areas, often with little or no compensation either in the form of alternative land
or cash for lost assets (see Table 3.2). The problem has become so widespread, in fact,
that a new category of displaced persons has been proposed: “development refugees”
(Horowitz 1989, 1991; Scudder 1990). River basin development projects, among other
kinds of large-scale efforts, have sometimes employed violent means to ensure compliance
on the part of local people. Dam projects such as those along the Narmada
River in India, the Rio Negro in Guatemala, and the Manantali Dam on the Senegal
River in west Africa witnessed repressive tactics by the companies or agencies involved,
including the murder of political activists, disappearances, the shooting of
demonstrators, arbitrary arrest, and the torture of detainees (Koening and Horowitz
1992; Human Rights Watch 1992:41–42; Scully 1996; Colajacomo 1999).
There are a number of cases where transnational corporations (TNCs) have
allegedly been involved in serious human rights violations against indigenous peoples.
These cases range from the actions of mining companies such as Freeport
Indonesia, Inc., (FII) in Irian Jaya (West Papua) to oil companies such as Texaco
and Maxus in Ecuador (see Table 3.2). Some companies, such as Royal Dutch/Shell
in Nigeria, have been accused of being in complicity with governments that are
oppressing their own citizens (Human Rights Watch/Africa 1995; Kretzman 1995).
Companies have been cited as being guilty of a series of human rights crimes, including
assassinations, disappearances, raids and the burning of villages, detentions
without trial, torture, purposeful dumping of toxic substances, and intimidation of
opponents (Human Rights Watch and Natural Resources Defense Council 1992;
Gedicks 1993; Wilmer 1993; Hyndman 1994; Kane 1995; Sachs 1995; Hitchcock
1997). Justifications by company executives for their actions range from their right
to protect their assets and the security of their employees to making profits, some
of which go to the countries where they operate.
In spite of the fact that human rights concern has become widespread, indigenous
peoples have continued to suffer severe abuse. Recent evidence suggests that