Everybody Wants to Rule the World

Please allow me to RANT: I have seen the abuse of power - before my own eyes! We have talked about human rights, social justice--all righteous, furiously-inspiring language for nothing! I am glad I have not converted myself to an "anthropologist." Anthropology isn't good or bad. But the practitioners--well, I always make the same mistake: I thought there was God, but there isn't.








P.S. I am glad to know: "Nothing ever lasts forever"

Normal Writing: I am listening to Patti Smith's version of the song, and forgive me for this obscure blog entry.

Gambling

Hello. I am back with...

a new research interest!

I met with a professor at UC Santa Cruz and talked to her about the possibility of doing a joint research in Indonesia. We brainstormed ideas - and she got very excited when I mentioned I was somewhat interested in learning the culture of gambling in Indonesia.

I have a personal interest (in addition to academic) in the topic - a family member and many of my high school friends gamble, and in some cases, their lives have been changed forever because of this habit (unfortunately, not necessarily for the better). I am not talking about $5-10 bets, but more like $100 bets each game. $100 is worth more (a decent lunch meal costs $1 there) in Indonesia than in the U.S.

Sports, online casino, numbers, even forex - are forms of gambling. The professor at UC Santa Cruz talked about people in a village where she worked. They asked the spirits for lucky numbers, or they had dreams in which numbers were interpreted. And the next week, half of the village lost one month's salary (the spirits and the dreams gave the wrong numbers). I am not sure if spiritism is in trend in big cities though. Most likely I will talk to city gamblers...

So - if you have resources you think might be helpful for me, please share. I am interested in ethnographic stories about gambling - stories, stories, stories! Theories are good, too.

Thanks in advance.

AAA Meeting 2006 - San Jose

I had never been to a professional meeting before. Everyone wore a badge (except me) and had in their hand the novel-length AAA Meeting program. For those of you who don't know, AAA stands for American Anthropological Association. I had to borrow other people's programs to find out where the panels were. There were many halls, rooms, areas -- it didn't feel like there were too many people because of this ample space.

I must admit at first I was seduced into becoming an Anthropologist; watching these people, they (some) look so attractive and intelligent. Yes, I romanticize a lot. Because everyone wore a badge (with their name on it), I was reading their badges hoping to meet some Anthropological stars. I didn't meet anyone (my friend confirmed that the stars didn't show up: Donna Haraway, Paul Farmer). I did see Ulf Hannerz, a Swedish anthropologist whose book we read in class: Foreign News. (In this book Hannerz studied foreign correspondents and how anthropologists can learn from them, and they, from anthropologists).

The first panel that I went to wasn't so informative for me. I arrived around 9:30 (it started at 8) and not long after that the panel was over. On the program it says the panel is from 8 to 11:45 - but it was over by 10:30 I think. I wish I had gone to Jonathan Marks' panel instead. I like his book, What It Means to be 99% Chimpanzee (his answer is basically, not much-- it doesn't mean much at least right now). Science in popular culture is definitely an interest of mine.

The second panel was a little bit more useful. It is called "The 1906 Antiquities Act: A Century of Critical Intersections and Dangerous Issues." The 1906 Act is the first law to prohibit grave looting. With this law, archaeologists have to have a permit before they can excavate. This law (not more than 500 words with no mention of American Indian) served the interest of archaeologists, museums, universities, but not American Indians. Most American Indians view the human remains of their relatives and ancestors differently from archaeologists/scientists. There were two American Indian presenters; both delivered their concerns, and the rest were archaeologists.

The Indians and archaeologists talked past each other. Here they were, in one room, in one panel, with their obvious differences, with one referring to landscape as "sacred land" and the other as "public land who should benefit the American (mainstream) people." One referred to objects as "cultural items that have meanings for the living people" and the other as "archaeological resources." Unfortunately I didn't stay until the end of the panel; I wonder what the Q and A was like. I had to leave.

One archaeologist (and "government bureaucrat" - her words) did say, before beginning her presentation, "I wish I could change my paper now-- I have gotten new insights from what I've heard so far from the panel." I appreciated this, because she recognized how incongruent some of the messages of the presenters were.

I talked to my friends who were also there. Sometimes anthropologists/ academics can have so much ego, and hypocrisy is not that hard to observe. Anthropologists are human too. As I said, I romanticize a lot. I know (now more than ever) that ego, hypocrisy, and politics are everywhere -- whether in the anthropological or creative world, even non-profit organizations. What I would like to do, is find something, somewhere, someone that I can work with closely and while realizing politics and other ugly things are present, I at least find my own space that I am the least uncomfortable. I am sure it exists.

Disclaimer: I did not mean at all to reduce anthropology as a field to people's egos and hypocrisy. Anthropological knowledge has been very useful for me in terms of understanding cultures and peoples in different periods of time and in different geographic locations.

Richard Dawkins and God

I have seen many people carrying or reading "The Selfish Gene" by Richard Dawkins.
I don't know why I never bothered to find out what this book is all about- until now, when I am preparing for a presentation on altruistic behavior (school is good!). The book was published in 1978 - and apparently has changed the ways many people think about evolution.

My current understanding (I haven't read the book) is that Dawkins argues that natural selection operates on a genic level - our genes are the unit of selection. Dawkins wasn't necessarily the first one to come up with this, but he popularized the view for sure. Most people understood/ understand Darwin's natural selection to operate on an individual/ organismic level. Dawkins argues this makes no sense, since only half of the bodies of sexual organisms are transferred to offspring. There are other reasons why Dawkins think genes are the unit of selection.

Dawkin's concept does not explain altruistic behavior, however. There is plenty of evidence for altruistic behavior in animals. For example, vampire bats regularly spit out blood and donate it to other bats who have failed to feed that night. Bats die when they don't eat for a couple of days. If genes are so "selfish," how can we explain these bats? This causes some biologists to think about group selection (Think about a group of selfish individuals, and a group of altruistic individuals. The altruistic one will win, while the selfish one will destroy each other.)

Anyway, the point I want to discuss is not about the unit of selection (although I think this topic is very interesting), but what Dawkins says about God and about religion.
First, in this interview he says that God is an imaginary friend.
Second, in his new book, The Delusional God, he maintains that, as the title suggests, God is a pernicious delusion. Read the NY Times review of this book
here.

This is related to my thesis.

Some scientists claim that their science is the only truth out there. Religion and traditional oral stories are "myths" and do not contain "real" history. Many argue that this is a Western view that has come all the way from the ancient Greek tradition and Plato (mind=reason, body=emotion; there's only one version of absolute truth; etc.)

I was having tea with a friend and biologist yesterday and he raised a good point: why can't we embrace the two ways of knowing [science and religion]? Why must God, or religion, be seen as obstruction to science or to an understanding of science?

To be realistic here - tradition, religion, God will not go away. The people who adhere to various spiritual, traditional, and/or religious practices will not go "extinct" (if I may use a term common in evolutionary language). Scientists, too, will not be extinct. So neither party will ever be able to convince the other that their beliefs are superior, or that their beliefs are the only truth. And what's with the arrogance? How can anyone really know if God exists??

Regarding cultural relativism, Dawkins says something like: the bottom line is that when cultural anthropologists go to their International Conference they do not ride on a "magic carpet," but Boeing 747. Oh Richard, you are so feisty!

Thesis: Part I

Many of you know that my thesis is on the issue of repatriation and reburial of Native American human remains and cultural items.

Do you know about the "Ancient One" case ?
Perhaps you are more familiar with the "Kennewick Man."
They are the same case - but who got to name this individual, who is more than 9000 years old, who display some American Indian physical characteristics, but also some Caucasian ones?

Do you know Franz Boas?
Yes, yes, he is the "Father of American Anthropology."
Yes, yes, he came up with "cultural relativism," "historical particularity" - he was the one to show that Social Darwinism was bull.
Did you know that he lied to Minik, the son of Qisuk, an Inuit? Boas staged a fake burial for Minik's father - in which Minik attended. Near the coffin and grave, they performed the Inuit's traditional practice of sending the dead. In the meantime, the real body of Qisuk was stored at Boas' museum - about to be studied.

Are Native American human remains "archaeological resources," "scientific specimen," and "collections"? Again - who gets to name what Native American human remains are called, or how they are referred to? When some scientists say that studies of Native American human remains benefit the American public, what do you think? Which public? Aren't Native Americans part of the public?

Do you know Samuel Morton?
A physician in the 19th century who thought there was a direct correlation between the size of skulls and human intelligence. He thought so even before he gathered his data. He encouraged people to collect and loot skulls (including Indian skulls) and in his book Crania Americana he said American Indians were inferior than Caucasians.

Boas was competing with Dorsey. Boas was with NY museum, Dorsey with Chicago museum. They wanted to have the biggest, most complete collection. They both bribed Indians, or secretly dug Indian graves for remains and objects.


1. Naming and who gets to name is a political issue. There is always a dominant narrative.
2. History, or how human remains ended up in museums, is relevant.
3. Emotion is relevant.
4. Personalities of the the present-day-living people matter.


What to do with an issue - so rich, so complex - with so many involved parties, from Native Americans, scientists, developers, lawyers, academics?


It would be ideal if we could embrace pluralism. Scientists can tell stories. So do Native Americans. Neither is more valid than the other. This is not possible politically however. One ideology dominates others usually. With NAGPRA of course things have changed; before NAGPRA, archaeologists were "the sole guardian of America's past." NAGPRA has shifted the power, and in the law human remains are no longer named, or referred to as "archaeological resources."

But as long as Native Americans' concerns are alligned with religion and with Christian extremists, and as long as scientists claim to always be "objective*" and to present the absolute truth of things - it will be hard for many to appreciate the realistic day-to-day, unique cases that happen every day. Cases where principal parties talk to each other, where both genuinely listen, even when they are suspicious of each other.

* I don't suggest that science itself can not be "objective," but the practitioners of science can certainly be non-objective. Scientific racism, social evolution - these are cases that show science is not benign. Really ugly things can be done - "under the name of science."

With all this history, what are the responsibilities of archaeologists and physical anthropologists today?


More later.


When I saw my advisor today, he said, "What an amazing world we live in!" The Anthropology department is in legal trouble. The chair is "sick of this."

Some ideas:
1. Anthropology as Cultural Critique
2. What does all this have anything to do with the Greek tradition and Plato, Christiniaty?

-- Did I write clearly? Sorry if I didn't - it's almost 1 AM - today was a 13-hour day, and I am restless.

PhD?

Is PhD in Anthropology for me?

I have been watching what kinds of forces are pulling me to what directions. I have been watching carefully.

When I took anthropology courses for the first time, I was so enmeshed in the field. It was the only field that could answer my personal questions: Why did my Chinese-Indonesian relatives and friends see and treat me differently because of my dark(er) skin? Why were GUESS, Esprit, and other American brands so popular in my high school in Bandung, West Java? Why do I feel neither "feminine" nor "masculine", like the oppositional way society defines the two? Why don't Native Indonesians and Chinese-Indonesians get along? What is evolution, and how are we the same as and different both within our own species and from other species? etc.

Social construction, scientific racism, structural violence, production and reproduction of history, and more -- the thrill of these revealing concepts! They were unthinkable to me before.



Recently, in the last year or so, the forces that pull me to the center have changed. Anthropology is a crucial, wonderful source of knowledge. Perhaps we'll talk later about my personal disappointment with the discipline. I will take anthropology whichever direction I go. Most likely I won't apply for PhD this year.


~

Bandung, May 1998

Mother is letting me be out as late as I want.
Friends and I eat fried chicken and rice with our hands
cross legged, on the floor without shoes on.
Goodbye, everyone says to me.

I am tearful and euphoric: America, who are you, here I come.

~

My poems will appear here and here.

Black Sexual Politics

I have been reading "AutoBio Diversity: True Stories from ZYZZYVA" (2005, edited by Howard Junker). There is a story called "Sex and Death at UDUB" by Kris Saknussemm, and it is about his wild years as a graduate student and English teacher at University of Washington (UDUB) in Seattle.

He confessed he didn't care about English; what he was interested in were the hot girls: "most stared surreptitiously at my crotch when I lectured, and all could be made to blush and giggle like flicking on a switch. (The black girls were different. They were louder, more adamant--and blatantly horny)."

Okay--I realize this is not an academic or anthropology paper, but that last sentence (as well as many others) was offensive.
I thought creative writers were supposed to show, not tell. How did the author come to the assumption of this Black female horniness? Or did he get it from TV?

This relates to another book I have been reading: "Black Sexual Politics" (2005) by sociologist Patricia Hill Collins. In the first chapter, she talks about how Black women in mainstream media have always been associated with wild, animalistic sexuality. This image has not changed much, from the time of Sarah Bartmann (early 19th century), who was brought from South Africa to London for a living exhibit, to Destiny's Child (21st century), who on the cover of their "Survivor" CD dressed in animal skin bikinis. They sing about being "survivors," and "independent women," yet their songs have such elements as sexually explicit lyrics, breast worship, and focus on the booty. They are also wealthy, by the way.

The danger of this image, as Collins argues, is that it helps create ideas about racial difference. It reinforces the notion of Black women as the Other. Collins also talks about Black men and their own variety of racial difference, constructed from ideas about violence and dangerous sexuality.

These ideas of racial difference spreads not only throughout the U.S., but also the world. People world wide buy Destiny's Child's CDs.


I have nothing against the author of the UDUB story, but maybe creative writers (fiction and nonfiction) should take anthropology and other social science courses. Journal editors can also benefit from reading books like Collin's. The point is, people should try to inform themselves in various fields. Creative writers can read social science. (This applies to anthropologists, too, of course). Even when it is fiction, a story is still a cultural message -- whether or not the reader (or for that matter, the writer) is conscious of it.

Here are more lines from the UDUB story:

- I had a hook-nosed Persian princess with a 40D cup giving me flowers and books, and a freckle-breasted hourglass redhead from Moses Lake writing me the most ungrammatical and touching love letters.

- And who could forget sweet Jane? Gifted with the firmest, shapeliest breasts I have ever fondled, but a complete and utter loon, who would later try to commit suicide just as I was coming over--

- To sit on the rail of the Ferry terminal with a newspaper of boiled prawns and thick wedges of lemon listening to a 34-year-old woman with breasts of an 18-year-old tell how she accidentally set fire to her house when she was six--


The obsession with breasts is particularly Western. But that's a different story/ analysis.