When some colleagues and I did research on Chinese and Afghan children in Hungarian secondary schools in 2003-04, we found that xenophobic views were consistently expressed by Hungarian students more or less regardless of social class (though of course there was individual variation). We hypothesized that this had to do to a large part with the absence of what is usually referred to as citizenship education — i.e. a coherently transmitted picture of what constitutes the Hungarian polity — which allows the ethnicist, descent-based views of nationhood held by many teachers and not refuted in mainstream media to spread unchallenged. In this, Hungarian schools were starkly different from those in Northwestern Europe, and this has not changed since Hungary joined the European Union.

This has just been confirmed once again by a survey carried out by a group  of sociologist, led by Mihaly Csako, on secondary school students’ views of democracy. Fewer than half of the students considered respect for the rights of minorities an important feature of democracy. Consistent with this, a majority said they would be bothered if they had to sit next to a Gypsy student. (60% of students at the more ‘elite’ type of secondary school, gimnazium, said so, in contrast to 40% at vocational secondary schools, where they are much more likely to actually have Gypsy classmates.)

The relegation of minority rights to a marginalised liberal discourse has been a gradual process. Tolerance of all minorities — ethnic, religious, sexual or social, e.g. the homeless — has been rising. Whereas homophobia was not discernible in Hungary’s political landscape in the 1990s, it has today become a regular feature of nationalist discourse. It must be said that in the ’90s, gay rights were not part of the liberal human-rights discourse or the politicized identity that they have become now, with politicians’ “comings-out” and Western-style gay pride parades (very small and heavily protected from physical attacks by hecklers though they are). But in Hungary, homophobia has little to do with religious concerns; rather, the thematization of any minority rights provokes angry attacks by nationalists who see this as part of a liberal discourse that betrays national interests. Anti-semitism, xenophobia, homophobia, anti-Communism and anti-liberalism are related and almost interchangeable sentiments in Hungarian nationalism, and indeed frequently feature in the same speeches. The kike, the Chinaman, the faggot and the Commie have become signifiers for the same conspiracy that threatens Magyardom. In this respect the nature of xenophobia in Hungary is different from Western Europe (where it is conceptually difficult to be both Islamophobic and antisemitic) or Australia.

This post has been removed at the request of the author.

Yesterday’s Herald reported on a case in France in which a requested marriage annulment made by a Muslim man after he discovered that his wife was not a virgin was overturned.  The article states that:

Public outrage at April’s annulment ruling forced the Government to order the case be reviewed, against the wishes of both spouses.

The groom, a Muslim engineer in his 30s whose name was not made public, sought the annulment after realising his bride was not a virgin on the night of their marriage in a civil ceremony in July 2006.

His wife, who admitted to him she had had premarital sex, said she accepted the annulment.

The case is extraordinary both because the annulment was reversed due to public pressure and because it was done against the wishes of both spouses.  Reading the article, I asked myself why a case like this would generate so much outrage while other cases involving a breach of trust between newlyweds would not register a blip on the public’s radar.  I can only assume that the case fitted neatly into stereotypes about “Islamic oppression of women”, the public focusing mainly on the question of the bride’s virginity rather than on the issue of trust. Ironically, the French public may likely be more fixated on the issue of virginity than the groom himself.

The fact that in all the outrage about this case the views of the bride were ignored also speaks volumes.  I am reminded of discussions of “the veil” in which the opinions of veil-wearing Muslim women themselves tend to be excluded because it is assumed that these women have been so brainwashed by their socialisation that they do not realise they are being oppressed.

The case would seem to suggest that Muslims in France are subjected to a higher level of public scrutiny of their private dealings than most people would expect.  It would also seem to suggest that gender relations within the Muslim community form a privileged site of critique by the non-Muslim population, an area in which people feel authorised to be outraged, and to express that outrage actively and publicly.

Several articles have appeared in today’s The Australian regarding the Northern Territory intervention, and on indigenous health and welfare more generally.  Of most interest to me was a report on calls to soften some aspects of the new government regime.  The article notes that while there have been some reported positive outcomes of the new paternalism in the NT, such as an increase in the amount of fresh food being eaten.  I’ve heard anecdotal evidence from an anthro working in Arnhem Land that the quarantining of welfare payments and the introduction of stamps for certain products has certainly had an effect on consumption patterns.  For example, kids are claiming “not to like” lollies anymore but to prefer fruit-based snacks like Roll-ups because the latter can be bought with stamps.  This allows them to continue to spend their free cash on cigarettes and other products not covered by the stamps.  It would seem that the new system has introduced new hierarchies of need where people have to make choices about which pleasures to keep and which to modify.  This is all interesting stuff and it would be great to see more reporting by anthropologists about what they’re seeing in the communities that they work with. All contributions are welcome and we are happy to reproduce them on this blog.

One area on which the Intervention doesn’t seem to be having an impact, and might even be making matters worse in some ways, is child welfare and the prevention of abuse.  This was of course the issue that prompted the Intervention in the first place.  According to a report by the Secretariat of National Aboriginal and Islander Child Care,

“A major unintended consequence of the NT intervention has been to stall and delay the necessary reform of the child protection systems (and) care needed to support children at risk of abuse and neglect,” the secretariat says in its submission.

“It has not uncovered the abuse of children or resulted in any significant change in child abuse notifications.

“Ironically, the intervention seems to have swept to one side the very issues that precipitated it in the first place.”

Other related articles in today’s Oz are as follows:

Call to lock in indigenous health gains
http://www.theaustralian.news.com.au/story/0,25197,24422991-5013172,00.html

Action, not words, needed to close gap on indigenous health
http://www.theaustralian.news.com.au/story/0,25197,24422990-5013172,00.html

[cross-posted to Khaldoun]

CTlab is hosting a virtual symposium on the Hamdan trial, and they’ve got a lot of people, including myself, poised to comment on Dr Brian Glyn Williams’ fascinating account of the trial of Salim Ahmed Hamdan, Osama bin Laden’s driver. Williams was an expert witness for the defense.

This week, Williams has been posting a five-part narrative account of his experience, and after the fifth installment, CTlab will post comments and observations from a panel of invited legal scholars and social scientists based in the United States, the United Kingdom, Canada, Australia, and New Zealand.

–L.L. Wynn

The Australian government has just announced a very positive change to the policy detaining asylum seekers.  According to the new policy, detention of asylum seekers will no longer be mandatory and will only apply to those arriving by boat or who are deemed to pose a threat to the community in some way or another.  It would also appear that even those detained will be subjected to a less draconian form of detention, with an emphasis on resolving cases quickly.

Not surprisingly, the Liberal opposition has condemned the move, claiming that this will send the wrong message to people smugglers. The opposition spokesman for immigration, Chris Ellison stated that:

“The fact that we only have six unauthorised arrivals in detention in Australia today demonstrates the past success of the coalition government’s strong border protection policies,” he said.

The decision would send a message to people smugglers in the region that the nation is relaxing its border control, he said. (SMH, 29 July 2008)

I have always been horrified by the logic of such arguments, which essentially says that some people, whether “genuine” refugees or not, should be punished in order to prevent criminal behaviour on the part of others.  This is a form of exemplary punishment akin to flogging some prisoners in order to serve as a warning to others.  It is particularly disturbing that a logic of this kind has the sort of respectability it does in public discourse in Australia.  Politicians from the right have been justifying mandatory detention, including the incarceration of children, for years.  Even now, Labor is careful to emphasise that they are not “opening the gates”, or going soft on asylum seekers.  For me this is a false framing of the debate: it shouldn’t be about who is “hard” or “soft” on asylum seekers but rather whether it is justified to use the misery of some as a deterrent to others.

In any case, the new policy direction is indeed welcome, though the online activist group GetUp! has noted that it could be easily reversed due to a change of heart of this, or a future, government.  They are calling for an ammendment to the Migration Act (PDF) in order to reverse the “presumption of detention”.  This is something I wholeheartedly support and I would encourage people to sign the online petition in order to put pressure on the Rudd government to do just that.

Jovan Maud

This morning I was trying to explain to an engineer-physicist all about the Human Terrain System.  That got me to explaining about the blog, “iluvamaninauniform.blogspot.com.”   The nom de plume of the blog is “Pentagon Diva” but the author was recently named as Montgomery McFate, as Open Anthropology, Savage Minds, and In Harmonium reported last week.

But when I went there to show him, the blog was gone!  It’s been taken down.  I wish I’d made some copies of the text (fortunately there are a few choice excerpts on Open Anthropology and In Harmonium).

“Never fear!” I proclaimed to the engineer-physicist (let’s call him Dave).  “I know a site that archives web pages.”  So I went to the Internet Archive to look for it.  Sadly, it appears that it’s not available on the Internet Archive, but that doesn’t seem to be because of a deliberate block but rather because it’s relatively recent.

But then Dave told me that he’d heard an interview on NPR’s On the Media with Brewster Kahle, the co-founder of the Internet Archive, describing how he fought back when he received a “National Security Letter” (NSL) from the FBI requesting data on a particular user of the archive.  According to Kahle, some 50,000 of these requests are made every year.  What’s alarming about these NSLs, besides the fact that they are outside of judicial review, is that they put a gag order on the recipients, preventing them from discussing the NSL request with anyone except their lawyers.  Of the estimated 200,000 issued over the past several years, only 3 NSL recipients have legally challenged the demand for information.  It reminds me again why I’m glad to have left the U.S.

Anyway, Kahle fought back with the Electronic Frontier Foundation (EFF) and the American Civil Liberties Union (ACLU) and eventually the FBI settled.  One of the terms of the settlement was that the gag order was lifted and Kahle was allowed to discuss the NSL and his fight against it.  Three cheers for the EFF, the ACLU, and the few people who have had the courage to fight an NSL.   (As a result of a previous challenge to an NSL, a U.S. judge found the whole system of NSLs to be unconstitutional.)

There’s a video describing another NSL recipient’s fight against this, and the EFF has made publicly available information on how anyone who receives an NSL can fight it.  I know we anthropologists probably aren’t on the front line when it comes to NSLs.  But then again, given the gag order, who knows who’s getting these things?  Might they include requests to teachers to provide information on a student?  So I thought it might be something that educators should generally be aware of.

–L.L. Wynn

Scott Thill at Alternet has published an article on the social impact of climate change.  The article goes as far as coining a new term: ‘envirogee’.  The implication seems to be that ‘refugee’ has a certain amount of baggage, being intrinsically associated with political persecution.  We are entering an age, mainly due to climate change, but also because of other cheery current/future phenomena such as peak oil, in which the traditional definitions of refugee will need to change to retain relevance.  The article is certainly polemic in tone, but I think it does the job of provoking thought on what the world is going to look like in the not too distant future and how our understandings of human movement, human rights, national boundaries and so on.  Here’s an excerpt:

Chew on this word, jargon lovers. Envirogee.

It carries more 21st century buzz than its semi-official designation climate refugee, which is a displaced individual who has been forced to migrate because of environmental devastation. Maybe the buzzword will catch on faster and shed some much-needed light on what will become a serious problem, probably by the end of this or the next decade. That light is crucial, because so far envirogees haven’t been fully recognized by those who certify the civil liberties of Earth’s various populations, whether that is the United Nations or local and national governments whose people are increasingly on the move for a whole new set of devastating reasons.

In short, immigration is about to enter a new phase, which resembles an old one with a 21st century twist. For thousands of years, humanity has fled across Earth’s surface fearing instability and in search of sustainability. But that resource war has kicked into overdrive thanks to our current climate crisis — a manufactured war with its own clock.

And the clock is ticking.

From earthquakes in China to cyclones in Myanmar to water rationing in Los Angeles, societies are shifting like their borders. And all the outcry over so-called illegal immigration neglects to answer one time-honored question: If the borders aren’t standing still, why should the people who live in their outlines do so? Especially when they’re under attack from catastrophic floods, fires, droughts and any number of other environmental dangers?

Right now, the 1951 Geneva Convention does not recognize the envirogee phenomenon, instead focusing on immigration as a result of political persecution. But then again, it was established over five decades ago when Earth’s climate was anything but a terrorist. But the Geneva Convention, like everything that must adapt or die, needs to mutate in time with the rest of the world and its hyperconsuming inhabitants in order to remain relevant in our still-new millennium.

Seeing as we have talked a little about the global food crisis on this blog I thought I’d draw attention to an appeal by avaaz.org to try to influence an upcoming UN summit on the subject.  Included in their webpage is this video, in which it is stated that currently 90% of Sierra Leoneans are unable to afford the currently inflated price of a bag of rice.  Food for thought indeed.

Brian McKenna writes in CounterPunch that he wants to work for the Army War College. Here’s an excerpt:

“To wage war, become an anthropologist.” That’s the opening line from a 2007 article in the U.S. Army War College journal “Parameters.” The feature, by Oxford educated historian Patrick Porter, says, “from the academy to the Pentagon, fresh attention is being focused on knowing the enemy.”

Today anthropologists are busy at work for the CIA and Pentagon…. I agree with the idea that “to wage war, become an anthropologist.” The trouble is that it turns out that we are on different sides of the war. “Human Terrain” anthropologists are with imperialism. I’m with Gramsci. …

McKenna goes on to outline a 10-day curriculum for soldiers. For example:

Day 3: NACIREMA: Discussion Where is this? What is capitalism? Discussion of Marx’s labor theory of value.

Day 6: How to keep from Dying: Are you safe? Discussion of April 17, 2008 RAND report which details 101,000 U.S. casualties a year. See “Invisible Wounds of War: Psychological and Cognitive Injuries, Their Consequences, and Services to Assist Recovery.” Other Readings: Grand Theft Pentagon: How they made a Killing on the war on Terrorism.

Day 4 is a fieldtrip to the US Veteran’s administration hospital; Day 7 includes discussion of the Geneva Convention. Read the rest at http://www.counterpunch.org/mckenna05282008.html

–L.L. Wynn