Votn'#! Sludla ReVIew I I, no. 2 (1996) Articles

Anthropology and Indian-Hating

Russel Barsh

AnthropologJSIJ have devoted considerably more effort to studymg the cultures of the victIms of oppression Ihan Ihe c ullures of their oppressors. ThIs IS parudoxical and unfortunate, since unlhropologists lend to identify with and support the cluims of IlIdlgenous peoples and other victims of raCIsm and dUCl'lmlnatl on Rigorous study of the organilation, recrUllment and reproductian Ofraci!lt groups and oppressive ",stllutlons,from "Indian burea us " to While supremacIsts, ","auld contribule more to tire liberatIon of Indigenous peoples thon further sludy of the wounds these institut ions inflicl

Les anthropologues 0111 consacre considerablement plus d'efforts a I'etude des cultures des VICllmes d'oppresslon qu 'a I 'etude de!l cultures des oppresseurs Valla un paradox deplorable. cor les onlhropologue!l !Ie monlrent ene/inS a appuyer et Ii s 'identifier oux revend,cat,ons des populations a ulochotones O"'SI qu 'uux aulres VICl/mes de racisme et de dlscnmination Une etude rlgoureuse de I 'organisation, du recrutemenl et de fa reproduction des groupes rac/Sles, mstllulions oppreSSlves, "Indian bureaus" ef tenants de 10 supremocie blanche contribuerait plus Ii fa liberal/on des populations au/ochtones que 10 prolongation d ·une etude sur tes maux mfllRees par ces ins/llutions

A wave of anti- Indian ' advocacy and violence accompanied American Ind ians' court victories over fishing rights in the 1970s, and resumed in the 1980s with the harassment of Indian fishe rmen in Wisconsi n. and the marketingof"treaty beer" as a fund-raising device by White hate groups.) Despite the terrifying impact of these ph enomena on Indians, scholars who make thei r living studying Indian communities have shown relatively I iule intcrest in the psychology or social organizati on of Indian-haters.

Two explanations may be suggested for this omiss ion. One is that predominantly non-Native scholars do not see Indian-haters as a threat on

3

Barsh "Anthropology and Indian-Hal ing "

the same order as apartheid or the Ku Klux Klan, both of which have been given greater allention , The other explanation is a fasci nation with the exotic. Anthropologists, in particular, have identified with the victims of racism and imperialism, and supported their struggles agai nst oppression and marginalization , Whi le this is to be welcomed morally, it ironically may lead anthropologi sts to limit their study to victi ms, rather than studying the victim izers.

A bias towards studying Indigenous peoples as victims exposes the weaknesses and divisions within Indigenous societies to criticism and manipUlation, while Indigenous peoples themselves learn nothing about combatting their oppressors. I f truly "liberated," anthropology would concentrate on questions considered importan t by the victims of power, rather than questions that are significant chiefly to anthropologists. The questions of greatest interest to Indians concern anthropologists' own class and culture.

Analytica l Myopia More has been wrinen about the effects of oppression on Indians than

about the causes of their oppression, and more about the cultures of the victims than about the organizat ion of their vict imizers. Most studi es of "border towns" have focused on how Native people cope with discrimination, rather than the social construction and economic uses of discrimination by non·Native townspeople,} A handful of surveys of contemporary Indian stereotypes ha ve seen print, but they have gone no further than confirming a correlation between respondents' stereotypes and their perception of being threatened economical ly by Indians:"

The main studies of the snuggle fo r Indian fishing rights in the Pacific Northwest devote but a few pages to the organization of White opposition groups.j Only one recent paper explores the ways in which White Canadians have organized to block land claims.6 The Handbook oj No,th American Indions devotes two chapters to " Indian hobbyists," but contains nothing on Indian·haters.1 Anthropologists continue to study Indians' cultures and "culture conflict," but not the White groups who believe they are defending thei, " way of I ife" against Ind ians.

Similarly. there have been few critical studies of the culture of the U.S. Bureau of Indian Affairs: how it recruits and socializes its personnel (most of whom are Indians themselves), lobbies Congress for funds , orrational izes the perpetuation of its contro l over Indian s' lives.' The re is only one study of social processes within Canada's Department ofl nd ian A fTairs .9 However, the impacts of these institutions in demoralizi ng Indian communities have

NQ/;veSllidres Rev;ew II. no. 2 (1996)

been the subjects of hundreds of publicatio ns. Vastly more has been published about old Ind ian-hating than about its

contemporary manifestations, creating a fal se impression of mo ral progress. Attention is diverted from the vio lent tendencies sti ll embedded in th e culture o flhe victimizer, to the lingering ill-effects of past viole nce on the cultu res and mental hea lth of the victims. The " problem" no longerbelongs to the o ppressor, but to the oppressed.

Table I summarizes all 1995-1996 publications(excludi ngreprintsand book reviews)on the Sociofiledatabase in the " American Indians" subject classification . Exactly ha If o f thi s current o pus is devoted to the descript ion and treatme nt of Indians' problems, including loss of identity, famil y and c ultura l breakdowns, family violence , suicide, addictions, crime, sc hool fa ilure and unemployment . Only one-sixth of these recent works address ei ther the nature of discrim ination against Indians, or Indians' patterns of resistance. Indeed, of j ust twe lve works that dealt primarily with the nature of racism and discrimination, not one involved primary research on racist or oppressive organizations. l o Anthropol ogists, who wrote one-sixth of the total output, devoted on Iy ten percent oftheir effort to racism or res istance;

Table 1 Current Publications on " American Indians," 1995-1996 Expressed as Percentage of TOlal (n~ 1 79)

"UTHO~'S AffiLIATION

~ anlhropology sociology health others tot. t Problems of '.4 7.3 ,., 16.2 J6.3

Treatment of 0.' 0.0 10 . 1 34 14.0

Racism against 0.' 3.4 0.0 2.' 6.7

Resistance by 1.1 2.' 0.0 4.' ••• Policy towards 0.' 0.' 2.' 3.' 7.' Insti tutions of 2.' 0.' 0.0 '.1 '.5 Symbolism of 3.4 0.0 0.' 1.1 5.' Olher topics 4.' L7 0.' , .. 11.J

Totat 16.8 16.2 23 . ' 43.6 100.0

Notes: ~Health~ includes social work, psychology. public health and mcdicine. ~Treatment" refers to counselling, helping and healing. ~ t nst;lutions- refers to tribat governments, internal laws and courts. "Symbolism- refers to studies of discourse and symbotism within Native Americall cultures and religion s. Data includes all enuics in Sociofile in aillallguages. except reprints and book reviews, for publiCltioll years 199' and 1996. Cotumn .Ild row totals may be affe cted by rounding.

6 Bar:rh "Anthropology and Indian-Hating "

sociologists, who also wrote one-sixth orlhetotal, were proport ionally four times more inlcrested in these topics.

Anthropologists continue to focus thei r attention on the victims of racism ratherthan racist societies, while other social scientists arc borrowing "ethnographic" methods from anthropology 10 unravel the world-views and recruitment processes of racis t political parties" and criminal organizations. '2

Ifanthropo)ogists consider it important to study how Indigenous peoples organize themselves to resist racism and oppression, IJ can it be less important to understand how other peoples organize to oppress these Indigenous peoples?

Organized violence against African-Americans has been given much more thorough attention, " though mainly by hi storians, sociologists and political scientists. Anthropologists have focused their work on African­American subcu ltures rather than racist organizations. 's The same pattern appears in the extensive body ofl iterature on apartheid , which ranges from the grass-roots organization of White supremacists to the role of South A frican churches and industry in promoting official racism.'6 South African anthropologists devoted themselves largely to the dynamics of Black communit ies and the effects rather than ultimate causes o f apartheid , however. 11

On the whole, then , research on racist organizations has bypassed Native Americans, and the academic discipline most closely associated with Native peoples - anthropology - has shown the least inclination to st udy the organization of oppressors . Most works about Indian rights and res istance are published in law journals, which creates an illusion that Indians are victi ms of government pol icy rather than of popular racism.

Is Anthropology Upside-Down? A generation ago, amidst American anthropologists' great cri sis of

conscience over the military abuse of ethnography in Vietnam , Laura Nader and Kathleen Gough challenged their colleagues to "study up" - to focus their analytical lenses on the in stitutions of power in today's global society rather than on the mi sery of the powerless." Why has their appeal not yet been fully heeded?

Anthropology is unusual among Western social science di sciplines. in that it tends to be identified with a class of subjects, rather than its objectives or its methods,l9 Other disciplines focus on a category of institutions, a category of behaviour ,or a way of measuring behaviour. Economists study markets, psychologists study thinking and perception, and sociologists study relationships between attitudes and conduct.20 Anthropologi sts

Naln'e Siudies Review II, no 1 (1996) 7

generally study marginalized peoples, Anthropologists originally studied soc ieties living outside the inOuencesofEuropean civilization ("primitive people"); today, they study peoples who have been impoveri shed by European civi lization (" Indigenous peoples," the poor, minorities),Z'

While anthropologists readily acknowledge the adverse effects of other soc ieties on its "prim itives," they avoid direct observations of the caU.ff!S of oppression and rac ism si nce that would require fieldwork among the oppressors , Elite classes and dominant cultures may be less amenable to being st udied than the poor, who have little choice in the maUer,21 In the go lden age of fieldwork, ethnographers were viewed as emissaries of the colonial powers; offending them risked orfending the gods. Perhaps anthropologists also identify with the poor, because they are marginal within their own societies.n They are refugees from the culture of the oppressor, seeking redemption through labours among th e oppressed. Herei n lies a contradict ion , however. Anlhropologists may best help the oppressed by going home and studying their own peers and institutions of power.2•

Some progress has been made. Feminist anthropologists have drawn connections between patriarchy and imperiali sm, and shown how colonial in stitutions have reproduced patriarchy as a means or dominating other peoples.2s There is a small but growing I iterature on the cultures of West em bureaucracies, chieOy social-welfare agencies.1

$ However, it is still easy to find books purportedly devoted to the anthropology of power that eschew the study of contemporary Western institutions,17

Anthropo logists have not, for the most part, turned their len s on the institutions of power that exist within th eir home societies. However, they have experienced rejection and marginalization within "primitive" societies, rather than absolution or sol idarity.lI Reluctant to study up, and more and more den ied access to studyi ng down, they are turni ng to studying themsel ves. The past twen ty years of anthropological writing have witnessed a trend towards se lf-reOection, and efforts to justify anthropology as an art rath er than a not-science.29

Refuge and Responsibility Anthropologists have long enjoyed a monopoly of interpretation of the

oppressed to the oppressor. The dangers Ihat attach to th is role have not been overlooked,)O and this may help explain anthropologists' growing tendency towards self-criticism and self.absorption , The role ofanthropolog islS as purveyors ofinfonnation to the oppressed about the world oflheiroppressors - the anthropo logists' own world - merits equa l allention . Anthropologists

Barl'h "Amhropo{ogy and (ndian-Hat;ng "

study down because they prefer the company of "savages," while the savages try to learn what they can by studying the anthropologists.J)

Textbooks offer guidance on choosing a place 10 live, dressing appropriately ("impression management"), avoiding getting involved in local politics or with local women , and overcom in g informants' reluctance to discuss their neighbours, but relatively little about researchers ' role as sou rces of strategic knowledge. One textbook from my student days conceded that field workers were ·'constantly asked about our ways of doing things," but argued that such exchanges of informat ion helped the subjects "raise their level of awareness of their own culture," as opposed to the anthropologists ' cu lture.ll A somewhat more recent text explained how the researcher could "trade on expertise" as a means of gai ning credibility and access to local knowledge - albeit warning that scholars should not inflate their expertise.ll Exponents ofnew"dialogical" research methods encourage reciprocity as an inqu isitorial tooV" but overlook the consequences of the dialogue forthesubjects. At least one recent work on fe minist methodology does not ment ion the potential impactoffemale scholars ' gender values o n studied communities.)J

To be sure, proponents of anthropological "advocacy" have argued more recently that anthropologists can contribute to the liberation of oppressed peoples by three means:

the anthropologist can translate the situation of oppressed peoples into terms the dominant society can understand ; the anthropologist can raise peoples' awareness of their own situation so that they can better advocate their own cause; the anthropologist can provide oppressed people analyses of the dominant society so that they can improve their strategy and tactics ofresistance. J6

The first goal merely restates a classical goal of anthropology - to give civi lization an accurate picture of the savages. Undoubted ly, arming progressive elites such as academics and environmentalists with better "damage reports" from the field can help innuence decisions in national capitals. This may win a reprieve for marginalized peoples, but it does not ensure their secu rity in the long term: the root of oppression is power rather than ignorance ormisunderstanding. American history is, moreover, replete with examples of the damage done by the " friends of the Indians" when, from time totime, they wrested control of In dian policy away from the army and the developers.Jl

It also seems presumptuous to suppose that an anthropologist who is just beginning to learn about an unfamiliar cu lture can help it to understand

Native StudIes New!!' .... I I. no. Z (1996) 9

itself Even if a community were so iso lated as to have no conception of its differences from others, the superiorsolu lion would be 10 help them travel , ralher than purport to serve as their eyes and ears. In other word s, iso lated peoples need their own anthropologi sts or explorers, who can look for the differences and ask the questions they consider most important when they come to study us. The fact of th e matter is that the "primitives" are already far ahead with respect to understanding them selves. The eni gma, for them, is us .

As for anthropologists' possible role as interpreters of dominant societies, thi s presumes that they actua lly study and have spec ial ized knowledge of their own cu ltures and political systems. Mayberry- Lewis contends that real advocacy :

requires an ability to study our own society (or other "modern industrial societies") with a detachment s imilar to that we strive for in studyi ng the exotic. It requires the ability to analyze nat ional pol icies. deve lopmenta I ideo logies and the workings ofbu reaucracies with a detachment that enables us to see beyond their fam iliar obfuscations and self-deceptions.lI

Thi s is a severe test, si nce anthropologists 8re products of their own class and cultures. Mayberry-Lewis recommends building al liances with urba n middle-class intellectuals against "sellier societies {whoj are a lways unsc rupulous"- for example, a mestizo peasant might propose un iting the poor in a struggle against the rich . In any case, the kind of ad vocacy Mayberry-Lew is promotes would begin with fieldwork at the Department of Indian Affai rs, Ihe head offices of major corporati ons and the conventions of hate groups. The failure of anthropologists to study up the ir own societies is incompatib le with advocacy. s ince it depri ves the anthropolog ists of the one gift they might deliver to their hosts.

Some anthropologists cou nter that the goal of their di scip line is " to increase our self-knowledge."'9 This is a worthy aim if it means an understanding of anthropologi sts' own societ ies, and not j ust the personal growth of individual anthropologists. The Romant ics of the nineteen th century went abroad to find them.selves, giving birth to "or iental ism" and anthropology. Romanticism survives in anthropology, fed by modem forms of alienat ion. escapism and a search for lost values.

Were There No Racists in Plainville? What might st udying up re vea l here in North America? A few clues can

be fo und scattered through th e social science li terature. starting with the "community studies" that were once in vogue among midwestern American

10 Barsh "Anrhr opofogy a'ld I"dian-Haling "

sociologists. Although several " While" North American communities have been the subject of classic ethnographies, the authors devoted little attention to racial and ethnic tensions. Middletown had a Black neighbourhood, but racism was relegated to a fOOlnote.4\) Plainville makes no mention al all of race or clhnicily, while the c)(haustive study of Jonesville, after brieny nOling the existence ora Polish enclave, made "oeffon to understand why other groups treated Poles with disdain .41 Even the study of Elmtown, completed at the height of the American civil-rights movement, devoted only three pages 10 the role of ethnicity in determining social stalu5.41

The exception to this pattern was an ethnography conducted in the South, with a specific focus on the socio-economi c bases of the colour bar.'J The authors concluded that the function of contemporary racism was the control of local farm land, just as the function of ante-bellum racism had been the control of slave labour. Thisechoes John Demos' finding that land disputes lay behind seventeeth-cenlury Massachusetts witch scares_'" In both cases. struggles for the control of economic resources were waged indirectly through a discourse about inferiority, deviance and danger.

Thc vict ims of such tactics, whether they be African-American s or alleged witches, are presumably not impressed by contentions that theydo not deserve a decent livelihood . They are oppressed by differences in power, not by the fo rce of their opponents' logic. If the ultimate result is dictated by power, why do oppressors bother to devise racist ideologies?The answer is suggested by the fact that only a small minority of the "dominant" group (Whiles, godly Christians) ever directly benefits from the redistribution of resources. Most Euro-Americans in the O ld South did not own slaves: most ofthc Puritans studied by John Demos were not land speculators. Those who did stand to profit from bigotry needed the support of the others, however, and they used pride, status and fear to mobilize that support. Rac ism has the ability to achieve a level of solidarity that transcends class divisions.

The Ethnography of Borders A useful venue for exploring the economics of racism would be the

"border towns" where Nativeand non-Nat ive people compete forthe same jobs, attend the same public schools and sometimes marry. In a study of Canada's northern frontie r, Jean Morisset argued that ··the Canadian psyche" is dominated byexculpatOl)' beliefs in the breakdown of Ind ian and Inuit soc iety, and in the liberating power of capitalist expansion,'s A key element of this self-serving logic was "'blami ng the victim" fo r the adverse consequences of development, a view reinforced by official studies and government policy. The most deslTuctive aspect of racism, Morisset

NaMe Siudies Review II. no. 1 (J996) II

concluded, was its power to co-opt Native people into seekingrespectability with Whites by confirming Whites' racist betiefs.~

Evelyn Plaice 's ethnography ofethnicity and class boundaries in North West River, Labrador, al so stressed the role of justification in theconst ruction of non-Aboriginal identiti es.·' The "settl ers" with greatest status based their co llective claims, paradox ically, on thei r knowledge of Indigenous tec hnology, and their ability to trace some of thei r ancestry to Indigenous roots. Latin American mest izo societies have made sim ilar claims to hybrid superiority.·'

It should not be startling that the boundaries between groups are constructed and maintained with the aim (or the effect) of controlling resources. Somewhat less obvious are the effects of oppression on the internal orderofthe oppressors. Mobil izing violence agai nst others involves an increase in uses of power and violence within the dominant society to levy greater taxes, organi ze industrial and military labour and suppress dissent.·9

Internal differences of class. ethn icity and gender ga in sa lie nce, along with increased aggress ion, fru strat io n and anxiety.

Recent research on the Ku Klux Kl an offers some further hin ts forthe st udyoflndian-hat ing. Popular media long characteri zed the Klan as a relic of the ari stocracy of the Old South,SO but in fact the KlalJ appears to have enjoyed its strongest support among the rural poor and urban workers." The Klan has been opportun istic, explo iting whateve r issues could be used to mobili ze White fears and frustrations, ranging from imm igrat ion and desegregation to crime and homosex uality.Jl Klan fo rtunes have waxed and waned with busin ess cyc les and times of social cris is.n It is a movement looking fo r a moment.

This kind of organized hate is not limited to "ext remists" but is a phenomenon of the poor mobil izing against the poor. The ethnography of hate suggests that rac ism is a fu nct ion of economic conditions, and not merely popular ignorance. Other factors may help racism coalesce and grow stronger, such as a lack of publi c confidence in the abil ity of government to maintai n order and restore prosperity, as we ll as the level of media atten tion give n to the problems (or the gain s) of other grou ps in society.)cO These fac tors intensify the perception that "the Other" is responsib le for economic downturns. This perce ption can be manipu lated by hate groups to inc rease thei r support , and by po li tical and economic el ites wishing to divert allention from them selves.

lf one thing is clear, however, it is the resurgence of organi zed rac ism and racial violence in the 1980s, a time of declining optimism and expectations.H Gaps in income and employment between Wh ites and non-

12 Barsh "Anthropology and ,m/ion-HOling "

Whites grew, whi le public confidence in govcrnmentdeclined inthe fa ce or colossal errors of judgment by public officials and the antics of junk-bond and merger kings on Wall Street. Indeed, racism grew in proportion to the evidence that uncontrollable Whiles were running the country.

Ifthis analysis is correct, anthropological "advocates" need to address the underlying poverty and inequality in their own societies. rather than simply challenging stereotypes, ignorance or bad science. They must, moreover, be sensitive to economic differentiation among flon.lndigenous people, and acknowledge that Indians and the worst Indian-haters may be victims of the same phenomena. The objective should be 10 find the roots of power, ralher than s imply opposi ng the people who shout racist s logans the loudest. This mighllead anthropologists to beadvocates and interpreters for poor Wh ites, not just Indians.

Subcultures of Power Eric Wolf once observed that "disregarding the problems of power" was

characteristic of American anth ropologists.S. Beingaccustomed to having power, Americans are less conscious of it. Powerful societies, indeed, are the ones that invented anthropology." Nonetheless, North Americans are in a favourable position to help liberate anthropology, becau se they have such rich ground to ploW. They have two departments of " Indian affairs" to study, as ,""ell as a splend id variety of private hale groups.

Whether the su bject of study is a public institution or a private organization , a common core of issues needs to be addressed:

social base - Who joins the organ ization, for what reasons and with what effect on their families and communities? recruitment - Howare potential members identified and selected by the organization? socializalion - What rituals and training are used to construct a sh ared vision and solidarity? elhos - What myths, symbols and "sc ience" (or pseudo-scientific theories) are used to establish group legitimacy and purpose? aclian - What is the group 's strategy for survival, growth and achieving its goals, and what tactics does it employ? mobilization - How does the group mobilize support among other sections of society, and deflect opposition, including its use o f the mass media?

The central strategic issue is the organization's source of power - its power resources in the terminology of contemporary political science - which may

NOliW! St"dies Review 1 / , no. 1 (/996) 13

come in part from its soc ial base, its utility to a broader range of interest groups and. in the case ofa state bureaucracy. its legal status. Without this analys is. it is impossible to know how itcan be most effectively challenged or mitigated, where its soc ial base can be eroded or how its actions can be neutralized . Usefu l model s can be found in studies of the cultures of business corporations, which have explored mythology," ceremony'9 and dispute resol ution,60 using too ls borrowed from ethnography.

My own personal contact with organized Indian-hating began when I was a member of an interfaith speakers' bureau organized to combat the worst excesses of White reaction to Indian treaty fi shing rights.!>1 I vis ited scores of churches. fraternal societies, union halls and other loca l gathering places, debating opponents of Indian treaty ri ghts, or responding to often­hostile audiences. One norm was shared by all of the opposition groups I encountered: equality.61

Why are the most vocal and organized opponents oflnd ian treaties and Aboriginal rights preoccupied with equality? One hypothesis might be that they are self-consciously the underdogs of non-Native society. Equality is not only an attack on the legitimacy of Indian claims, but an implicit demand for justice vis-a.-vis other Whites. These citizens do not cry "equality!" at the Rockefellersor Bronfmans, however. The limited context in which the appeal to equality indicates that it is ademand not for equalization with the rich, but for preserving the exi sting status hierarchy among different groups of the poor. Not surpri singly. thi s recall s the argument that imperialism distracts the poor within the colonizer's society . Instead of combatt ing injustices at home, they compete for status with the poor abroad. ~ Hence we see agai n that the key to understanding the situation of Indians is not to be found within Indian societ ies, but in the injustices and opposition that ex ist among European-Americans.

Future research should also address the parall els between popular fonns of private Indian-hating, and institutions of govemment charged with the management (or "protection") of Native peoples. Private hate groups and public agencies recruit personnel and mobilize support from the same population . To survive, they must forge an ethos of communal so lidarity and legitimacy in the face of resistance by the groups they control or oppose. Public agencies may enjoy the securityofa legal and financial relationship with the state, but can lose this sinecure iftheydisappoint public expectations.

Of course, " Indian bureaus" are supposed to protect Indian s from Indian-haters. They are said to bear a trust, or fiduciary abligation to Indians under contemporary American and Canadian law. But this may only be an illusion. What do these state bureaucracies do in reality? They

14 Borsh "Anthropology aNi Il1d"",.Holmg "

mediate between Indians and Indian-haters. Theyc)(ist because of opposition to Indian rights; it is their raison d 'eire, and they have historically defended Indians up to the point that their own surviva l, growth and power were threatened. The his tory of an Indian bureau is a series of compromises with the J ndian-haters, at Indians' expense," Moreover, the ability to make stlf­perpetuating compromises depends on adopting some oflhe language. if not the cthosoflndian-haters. Why do we protect Indian land, on lytoopen their land to developers later when its value has increased? The bureaucrats reply: II is good for the Indians, and will make them equal!

We may find that periodic reversalsor"cycles" in Indian policy, lasting from twenty to thirty years, reflect cycles in the social and economic momentum behind private Indian-hating. In other words, Indian-policy cycles may have more to do with periodic disi llusionment and perceived injustices within White society than anything pertaining specifically to Indian s.

Insufficient attention has been paid to the interplay of internal and external violence in the history of a powerful , dominant society, such as White America or Canada. Indeed, a major historical survey of collective vio lence in Canadian history mentions Aboriginal peoples in only two contexts (the 1885 Red River conflict and domestic violence on modern Indian rcserves) as if the gradual but aggressive removal of people from their homelands over the intervening 110 years was somehow not a form of v iolence .~ Indian-hating and other forms of col lective violence and hatred, directed for example against the poor, immigrants or francophones, may have different targets but the same perpetrators . It is tempting to speculate that Indian-hating has frequently provided a safety-valve for other personal, ethnic and political frus trations.

Indian-hating has arguably been the most consistent diversion for the fru strations of North American immigrant populations for centuries -except perhaps in the largest American industrial cities and the Old South, where African-Americans have apparently supplied the same need . In Puget Sound, public officials and the press blamed declining stocks of salmon variously on the Japanese, Russians, Koreans and Canadians; bUlthe only group consislently blamed for the decline, over a twenty-year period , was American Ind ians.66 Aboriginal peoples have likewise long served as a scapegoat in Quebec polilics. ~7

Racial and ethnic conflicts heighten the sa lience of boundaries and encourage individuals to take sides rather than admit to diversity of ancestry. Might it be true, as a corollary, that organizations and institutions preoccupied with racial and ethnic purity tend to attract individuals who are

Nal""~ Sludles RevIew II , no. 2 (/996) " experiencing difficulty coming to terms with thei rown complex or ambiguous identities? Arc ethnically ambIvalent pcople more likely to suppon raCial and ethnic extrem ism than people who are candidly self-aware of their own ethnicity? There do not appear to be any published studies of ethnicity and ethnic self-consciousness among Indian-affairs bureaucrats or Indian-hate groups, unfonunately .

This line of inqUi ry might also reveal an imponant difference in motivational structure between Indian-hating and colour racism. Nonh American and European mass cultures today accord a positI ve status to Aboriginality. To the extent that Indian-hating anracts ethnically ambivalent individuals, it may reflect envy as much as material greed .

Liberating Anthropology Liberation theology has become a significant political factor in Latm

America by "speaking m the name of the poor" against all forms of elite power, including the Church itself.~ What makes this school of theology "liberated" is not merely its oppos ition 10 oppressIOn bUI the fact thai it is a theology informed by experience and interpreted/ rom the bottom up. It is a theology liberated from its priests and returned to parishes . Instead of telling people what they muSI do, it gives them a language in which they can express their own aims . ~9

To liberate exploited people, anthropologists must liberate their own societies. They need to begin by studying the acquisition and use of power, and recognize the role of anthropology as the source of data and theones historically used to justify opp ression . They also need to challenge the "chu rch" directly by liberating anthropology itself, as a di scipline.

L,beral/on anthropology would seek to answer the questions posed by oppressed and marginalized peoples. Ofneeess ity, it will become a study of power and domination rather than victimization . Anthropology has long claimed for ilself a more holistic and universal perspective than political science, sociology or economics. Now is the time for anthropologists to prove it by doing an even better job of analyzing the same organizations and institutions .

Anthropologists of the early twentieth century tried to preserve some memories of pre-contact cultu res; anthropologists in the 1950s began to document processes of destruction; smce the early 19705, anthropologists have taken an interest in the processes of resistance. This shift from lamenting culture change as decay to recognizing it as a function of resistance and renewal was the first step in liberating anthropology,10 "Studying up" should be the next

16 Barsh "Anthropology and Indian-Haling"

Notes r hope 10 be forgiven for mixing the currently preferred American terminologies ("Ameriean Indian" or "Native American") with those that enjoy greatest favour in contemporary Canada ("Aboriginal peoples" or ~Fi rsl Nations"). My use oflhc term "Indian·hating" is a deliberate auempt to evoke the statc of mind of those wllo hale. ralher than IlIal of the victims of hatred.

Bruce E. Johansen. "The Klan in a Can," Tht Progressive 52. no. 7 (198B): 13; Craig Neff. "The Wisconsin Fishing WIU," SpoTls lIIus/rottd70. no. S (1989): 16: Scon Kerr, 'The Ne,",' Indian Wars: The Trail ofBrokcn Treati es Grows Longer,~ The !'rogress"'"c 54. no. 4 (1m): 20-22: United Stales Congress. "Ami.lndia" Violencc": Heo""'Ks ~fore the JudicIary CommJ//ee of the United Stot~s Houu of Repr~stt1lalives, IOlst Congress, 2nd SelSion (Washington, D.C.: GO"cmmcnt Printing Offiec, 1988).

Evelyn M. PI8i~c, The Nat,ve Game. Sellier Puceptions of Indian-S~lIlu RelatIons in Southern Labrador (St.John's: Memorial University of Newfoundland, 1990), p. 7. Eump1cs indude Jcanne E. Guillemin, Urban Renegades. The Cul,ural Sirotegy af American Indians (New York : Columbia University Press, 1978) and Donna Deyhle, "Navajo Youth and Anglo Racism: Cultural Integrity and Resistancc," Harvard £dUCallOn Rev,ew 65, no, 3 (]99S) :403-44.

Jeffery R. Hanson and Linda P. Rousc,"Dimensions of Native American Stereotyping," American Indian CII/lure and Ruearch Jaurnal ] ] , no. 4 (] 987) : 33- 58: Linda p, RQUSC and Jeffcry R. Hanson, "American Indian Stereo-typing, Resource Competi ti on, and Slatus-Based Prejudice," American Indian Cui/lire &- ReuorchJo"rna/15, no. J ( 1991 ): ]-17,

Fay G, Cohen, Trea/,es on Trial. The Continll",g Controvusy over Nor/hWitJ/ IndlOn Fish",g R,gh/s (Seattle: University of Washin8ton Press, ] 986), pp. ] 75, ] 86; Diannc Newell, Tangled Webs of History: Indians and the Low in Canada 's Pacific Coast Fisheries (Toronto: University o f Toronto Press, ] 993), pp. ] 76-78.

Peter Armitage and John C. Kennedy. "Redbaiting and Racism on Our Frontier: Military Expansion in Labrador and Quebec," Canad,an Rew,ew of Soc,ology and Anthropology 26, no. 5 (1989):798-817, Cj. Paul Tennant, Aboriginal Peoples and PolilICS: The Indian Land QueSfion in BrJ/ish Columbia, 1849-1989 (Vancouver: Uniwersi ty of British Columbia, 1990), which devotes a score of pages to Whites' " attitudcs." but ~ontains no information on organi~ed opposition groups of landowners and loggers,

Wilcamb E. Washburn (cd.), HmorYoflnd/On-Whilf Rtlafions. Vol. 4, Handbook of North American Indians (Wastlington, D.C.: Smithsonian Institution, t 988).

Russel L. Barsh, "The BIA Reorgani~ation Follies of 1978: A Lcsson in Bureaucratic Self-Defense," American /ndion Law Revi~w 7. no. 1 (1979): 1-50: Russel L, Barsh, "Progressive-Era Bureaucrats and the Unity of Twentieth­Century Indian Policy," Amedcan Indian Quarterly IS, no. 1(1991): 1- 14; Duane Champagne, "Organizational Change and Conflict: A Case Stud), of the Bur~au of [ndian Affairs," American Indian CUI'Ure and Research JOllrnol7, no. 3 (1983 ): 3-2 8; Stcphcn E. Feraca, "I nsidc the Bureau of Indian Affairs," Society 27, no. 4 (1990): 29-39. This last paper is actually a diatribe against preferential employment of Indians.

NOI/\'e S,wd,u Rev,no.r II. /'to 1 (1996) 11

9 S.Uy M \\' uv~r , Mak,ng ('anadra" IndllJn Pa/'q Til, H,dd." Ag."da 1961/ 1970 (TOlonlO Un.~crs.l)' ofToronlo Pr~u , 1911) See "'oel O)'~k, "'''a' I, ,,,, Ind, .. " "P,abl.", T~/"ag' .. nd RUisl .. " c. '" Canad,a" I"d'an ArJ""n""'""on (51 John's, Newfoundland MemOlial Un,verS'I)" 1991) (or a cmu:al h',lor), of policy development

10 Seven deal l wllh Ih~ na ture or demography or nelatlve S l er~otypes, thr~c u~ed

th~ h,story of Amencan Indllns IS en example ofracnm In brold lermland t .... o used historicil case Slud.es of mass killings of AmeTlcan Indllns to suppOrt a th~ol') of the cause of genocide

11 S~e, ror example, Cat tile Lloyd and Haul Wllers, -Frlnce One Cullure. One Peopler Roc. &, Clall 32. no. 3 (l991) : 49- 6j ; Bruce Matthe ..... s. -S'nhlll Culturel and Buddhis t Pllriotic OrganiHtions In Contemporary SrI L.nla.~

Pac,/ic A//alr$ 6 1, no. 4 (1989): 620-32 An ucepllonal study by In anthropologist is S t llnl~y R. Barrell. Is God A Rac,,'-' Th. R'g'" 'for"g '" Canada (Toronto: University of Toronto Press, 19117)

12 For ellampl~, Francis A 1. llnni, A Family 8ul"":u Kuullrp a"d SOCial COII/'OJ .11 Orga",:.d C"m. (New York ' Russell Sase Found,uon, 1972). Francis AJ. lanm , 8/od Mafia Elhnlc S",cuu,all III Orgafu=.d C,.."'. (!':~ .... York ; Simon & Shustcr, 1974).

] J Shuichl Nagata. - From Ethnic Bourgeoisie to Organic Intdl~~tuals. SpeculahOnJ on North. American Native Leadership." An,hropolog'ca 29, no. ] (1987): 61 -H; Aluander M. Erv in, "Styles and Strategies of Leadership during the Alaskan Native Land Claims Movement: 19j9- 197I ,- Anlhropologlca 29, no 1 ( 1987): 2 1-38.

14 Se~ Len .... ood G. Davis, Th, KII Klou KIa" A Bibliography (Westport, CT Green .... ood Pr~ss . 1984) and. most recently. K lthle~n M BI~c. "om.n O/llr. Klan Roc.sm a"d Gllnd., ,n Ih. 1910s (Bcrkeley. CA Unl\crsity ofC.lifornil Press, 199 1). See C. Matth.ew Snipp, -UnderstandIng Race and Eth,."cit)' In Rural America," RllraJ Saclology61. no. I (1996): 12S-42 for a recent comment on the need for more work by sociologis ts on rac~ relations - and an IdmiSSion that Indians have b~cn overlooked.

IS E.L. Cerroni·Long, - B~nign N~g]~ct'? Anthropology and the Study of Blacks in the United Stales.- Jo""nol olB/ad S,,,,d,CI 17, no. 4 ( 19117): 438-j9; Andrew H. MIlI....-~II, -The Anthropology or Poverty In Blick Communities, A CrItique Ind Sysl~ms Altemat,ve,- U, bo" Anlhropalagy 17, nos_ 2 & J ( 1988). 171 - 91

16 S~e, fo r uample. Heribert Adam , -Variations of Elhnicity: Afrikaner and Black Nationalism in South Africa.- Jo"""al a/ AS/on and A/rlcan Sl",dlu. 20. nos. 1 & 4 ( 198j): ]69-80; K~n Jubber, -The Prodigal Church: South Africa's Dutch Re formed Church and the Apa"htid Policy,- SOCIal Compan 32. nos_ 2 & J (198j): 273-8 j; Timothy Keegan. "Crisis and Catharsis in the Development of CapitalIsm in South African Agriculture," A/riCO" AflO"J 84, no. ))6 (l9SS): 37 1- 9S: K.C. M. Rogerson. S.O. Beavon and G.H. PlTle. - The Geography or the Arri kln~ r Bro~der·bond In Namlbia.- SOCial Dynam,cJ j. no. 2 (1979); 13- 17

18 Barsh "Anthropology and Indian-Holing "

17 For c:o.amplc, Isal A NIehaus. ~Relocatlon 1010 Phl,llhaduJhaba and T5Cki : A Compara''''c Elllnog/aph) of Planned and Unplanned Rcmo~al s.~ A/rlean S,,,d,u 48. no. 2 (1989); 159~81; Andrew 0 Spiegel. MTlu: Aml>lgull1C5 of ScHnmen,: A Transkci Cue Study," A/riCU" SI"J,U 47. no. 2 ( 1988 ); 147- 69; M.G. Whisson, MTswclc lswclc: From SenlcmcnllO Community in a Peri-Urban Arca orlhe eisleti," Urbun Amhropology 13, nos. 2 & 3 (1984): 2J7- S9 BUI sec Vincent Craplnl.anO. Wailing TIr~ W!IIIU of Soulh AfrIca (New York' Random House, 1985)

18 Laur. N.du, "Up Ille Anthropologist - Perspectives Giuncd from Slud)lng Up," In R"'''''''''''''gAflllrrop%gy. cd Dcllllymcs(NcYl York. Random I10use, 1972), pp. 284- 3 11 . Kallileen Gougll . "Antllropology and Impenalism.M Monthly R~~.~", 19, no. I (1968) : t 2-27 and MNe ... proposals for antllropologists. M Cwn~'" Anthropology 9, no. 4 (1968): 403- 7.

19 Here J disagree witll the vic"" of Ernest Gellncr, "The Politics of Antllropology." Go~~rn",tnt and Opposlt.on 23. no. 3 (1988): 290- 303, that anthropology defines itself by It s ",elhods rather tliin ilS substance Anthropology I nd sociology share the ume blsic qua1itati~e methods of obserVilion and mttrviewing. More pef$uuive is Gellner ' s Irgument tllat anthropology hn a " baptist" chlracter - }OU do not really belong until you have been baptI sed III the field .

20 Of course , the univenallst pretensions of mainstream disciplines such as economics. psycho\og~ and sociology do not meRn thai they arc trul~ culture· free . On the contrary, Ihey focus on do",uron' socie ties and institutions - the exact reVerSe of traditional anthropology - which they model and interpret accordlllg to Western c ultural paradigms.

21 The Anfhropolog.ca l JOllmol on Ellrop,Mn ellllllrts. a self-conscious effort to promote the study of cultural forces ursldt Western society, "'as la unched in 1992 - and is largely devoted to European Hmmorities. "

22 Stanley R. Barrell , An,hropology. A SllIdem's GII.de 10 Theory and Mcthod (Toronto, Buffalo, London : Univers ity of Toronto I'ress. 1996), nicely describes his own misgivings and difficulties launching a study of Whitc supremacists.

2l As I argued in Rusu:1 l. Barsh, HAre Anthropologists Huardous to Indians' Hcalth?M JOllr",,1 01 Elh".c 5111d.ts 15. no. 4 ( 1988): 1-38 . My c riti c ism is ai med at the dominant forces within Ihe diSCipline of anthropology in the WeSI, anthropologists Ihemselvu a rc stratified - by colour and gender - ... ,th respect to status and privilege, and there arc al",ays vOIces of resistance Inside the profession.

24 David Mayberry·l.e wi s. "A Special Sort of Pleading: Anthropology at the Service of Ethnic Grollps," in Advococy and Amh,apology. cd . Rober, I'aine (St . 10hn·s. Ne ... foundllnd: Memorial UniverSIty. 1985). pp. 130- 48; he observed that "anthropologists usually try to help because of their conviction thlt such societies arc being ... ronged, of un with no clear Idea o(ho ... to set abollt righting thc wrongH (p 130).

NOIll'e Studies RevletI' I I , no 1 (1996) 19

25 I1cnriclla L. Moore. Fcml""m and AnlhMpalogy (Cambridge; Polity, 1988); Micaela Di Leonardo cd .. CCI1dl" or rhe C,auraad, a/ Knowledge Fem/",,, Anrhropology in tire POSfmodl"n E,a (Berkeley. CA: University of California I' ress. 199 1). It shou ld be lIoted that WesteTIl (emlllists have been criticized for overlook ing thei r own relatively privileged status in the world: Kimberl y Christell$Cn, .. ' With Whom Do You Bclie\e Your Lot [s Cast?' White Femilllsts and Rac ism:' Signs Jou,nal 0/ Women If! Culfure and SOCltty 22. no. 3 (1997): 611-48

26 For a thoughtful recent survey ofthls rcsearch, sec Susan Wright. H Anthropology: Still the Uncomfortable Discipline?"' in The Futu,e 0/ A ",h,opolol/Y. lIS Relevance 10 Ih" COnlemporary Wor/d. cd Akbar Ahmed and Cris Shore, (London and Atlantic Ilighiands, NJ: Athlone. 1995). pp. 65- 92. For a recent example of the genre using a discourse approach. sec Josiah McC. Heyman . " I'ulling Power in the Anthropology of Bureaucracy : The Immigrat ion and Naturalizat ion Se rvicc al thc Mexico- Uni ted States Border," Cu"cnt Amhropology36, no. 2 ( 1995): 261 -11.

21 For uamp1e. Nicholas B. Dirks, cd .• Cololllal,sm and Cullur .. (Ann Arbor: Universi ty of Michigan I'n:ss. 1992); John S. Henderson and Patricia J Netherly. cds, Con/igllrallons 0/ Powl" HoII:fllc Anthropology In Theo,y and Practlel' (Ithaca & Londoll : CorneLl University Press. 1993).

28 l3arrctt. Anth,opology A Sludent's GUIde, refers to the growing rejection of anthropology by the primitives BS 3 force tending towards the '" taming of the anthropologist"' (pp. 236-37).

29 Sec Laura Nader. HPost_lnterpretive Anthropology. ~ Allfhropologlcal Quarterly 61. no. 4 ( 1988): 149- 60

30 Deborah Gewerll and Frederick Errington. '" We Think, Therefore They Are? On the Occidentalizing of the World. H A"th,oPQloglcal Qua,tl"ly 64, no. 2 (1991): 80-91; Marc Manganaro, cd .. Modl"msl Anth,opology: F,om F.~ldwork

/0 Ttxl (Princeton, NJ: I'rinceton University Press, 1990).

31 Triloki Nath Pandey. "'Anthropologists atluni,H Procudlf!gs o/ Ih t America" Ph,losoph.cal SoClny 116 ( 1972): 213- 37 .

32 Thomas Rhys Williams, F."ld Mnhods '" Iht S,udyo/Cul,u,e (New York : Holt. Rlllehart &. Winston, 1961). p. 46. Two more reprcsentative ,",orks from that era arc Pertll 1. Pelto. Anlhropologicol Rcuard,: Tht SlrUCIU,.e o/lnquirY (New York: Harper &. Row, 1910). and G.N. Appell , EthICal Dilemmas In

Anth,opologlcal Inq ui,y- A Case Book (Waltham . MA : Afri can Studies Association. 1918).

33 Martyn Hammersley and Paul Atkinson. Ethnography Prtnclples In Pru.ctlce (London. New York: TaviSlock, 1983). pp . 81 - 84 .

34 Dennis Tedlock. '"Questions Concernin8 Dialogical Anthropology. H Journol 0/ Anthropolog.cal Research 43. no. 4 (1987): 325-31.

35 Peggy Golde, cd .. Wom~n In 'he FIeld. AnthropologIcal upe"enas (Berkeley. University ofCaliforni. Press, rev. cd., 1986). More seems to have been written about the psychological st resses experienced by anthropologists in the field than the stresses their presence imposes on the people they study. John L. Wengle. Ethnog , aphl"$ ill the Field: Tht Psychology 0/ Research (Tuscaloosa: University of Alabama Press, 1988); Hammersley and Atkinson. EIIr"og,aphy. pp. 98- 101.

20 Barsh "Anthropology Qnd Indian-Holmg"

36 Kirsten Hut. up and Peler EISIss. -Anthropological Advocacy: A Contudichon H'I Terms?" C"rr~""h'hropology 3 1, no 3 ( 1990); 301-3 I I ; Georg Henriksen, -Anthropologists as Advocates: Promoters of Plu ralism o r Makers of CI,cnu1-in AawJ<:ac), and Anthropology. cd. Roher t Paine (51. John'S: Memorial Univers ity of Newfoundland, 1985), PI' . 11 9- 29: Maybe rry -Lewis, -A Special Sort of Plcading,"

31 Ruud L. Banh ud James Y. Henderson, Thc Rood- Ind,an Tribel "nd Po/"real trberl)' (Berkeley. CA: University of California Press. 1980), PI' . 63ff.

38 Maybcrry-Lc"'is. "A Special Sort of Pleading.- p. 141. A legitimate question may be posed about the fusibi l ity of "detachment" In ony study of human bcha~iour.

39 Gewertz and ErrIngton, "We Think, Therefore They AreT p. 89 (emphasis added).

40 Sec Robert S. Lynd and Helen Merrill Lynd, Middle,own A Sludy {n Amuican Cullure (Ne'" York ' Halcoul!, Brace. 1929), p. 479

41 W Lloyd Warner , Demouacy {n Jonuv",le A Sludy 'n Qllal"y and Inequal"y (New York : Harpers, (949); James West, Pla,nv,lIe. U S A (New York : Columbia University Press, 1945)

42 August de Belmont Hollingshead, £Imlown', Youlh and Elm/own RUllw,d (New York: Wiley, 1975).

43 Allison Davis , Burleigh B. Gardner and Mary R. Gardner, Deep Sou,h A $oc",/ Antltropologlcol Siudy of Creme and ClolJ (Chicago: University of Chicago Press. 1941).

44 Jo hn P. Dcmos, En/erla,rung Salon W"cltcraf, and Ine Cullure of Ear/y New £;ngland (New York : Oll:ford University Press, 1972).

45 lean Morisset. Lu c lt,eflS I ·enlre·dlvaunt 'nd,ulJ, blancl el mitis dans Ie grand nard canadIen (MontreaL Nou~cllc Optiquc, 1977), pp. 247- 51. M orin ci over·gcneral izes: h IS subjects" erc a particular group 0 fEuro·Canadian s engaged in fronller development.

46 Including posit,ve stereotypes. On the ties between romanticism, ·' nouveau prlml!i~ism" and bla ming the viclim in contemporary Canada, sec Runel Barsh. ~ James Fenimore Cooper in Canada," LlIuary Rev,ew of Canada 5, no. 1(1996) : 11 - 13

47 Plaiec, The Nati"e Go"" . Comparc Niels W. Brlroe. Indian and Wlti/e Sclf· '",age and In'U(Ulion In a Canad;an PlalflS Camm"ruly (Stanford: Stanford University Press, (975), concluding that each side had deployed stercotypes 10 malnt.in borders and defend resourccs.

48 Rodolfo Sta~enhagcn, ~Classes, Colonialism, and Aeculturation," in Masses In

La'III AmeTlca. cd , Irving L. Horowitz (Ne w York: Oll:ford University Press, 1970). pp. 235-88; Colin M. MacLachlan and JaIme E. Rodriguez 0 ., Tht Forging of the Cosmic Race A Rc;nurprcla/lOn ofC%n;al Mu;co (Berkeley: University of CalIfornia Press, 1980).

49 Ashis Nandy, The 'n"malt Enemy : Loss and R.co~~~y ofSelfllnder C%nto",m (Delhi : Oxford Un,vcrsity Press, 1983).

NatIve Stlfdie,s Review II. 1'/0 2 (1996) 21

50 0 W. Oriffith's controversial film . BIrth 0/0 NaftOn, endorsed a romanlle yicw of the Klan, fashioning imagery that has been a.s hard to shake from Ameri~an

iconology as the " yieious" Indians in the formula Westerns of the 1930, and 19405.

S I Leonard J . Moore, " Historical Interpretations of the 1920 ', Klan : The Trad itional View and the Populist Reyi$ion ,~ Jo,.rnal oj SOCi al Hi$tory 24 , no. 2 (1 990): 341 - S1 ; Kenneth T. Ja~kson , Th e K,. KI,.; Klan In ,h~ City. 19/5-/930 (New York : OKford Uni versity Press, 1967 ); Rick Selt ;r;cr and Orace M, Lopes, Mlhe Ku K IUK K Ian: Reasons for SUppOri or Opposit ion among White RcspondenlS,~ J ournal 0/ Blad Sludiu 17, no. I ( 1986): 9 1- 109; Kenneth D. Waid, MThe Vis ible Empire: The Ku Klux Klan as an Electoral Movement ,~ Jo urnal 0/ /nterducipltnary HlSl ory II , no, 2 ( 1980): 211-34.

S2 la~k son , TIle Ku Klux Klan ,n the City; Blee, Women o/ lhe Klan ; Thomas J Keil , " Capital , Labor, and the Klan : A Case Study," l'hylon 46. no. 4 ( 198S): 341 - 52 .

S3 James L. Massey and Martha A, Meyers. " Pallcm s of Repressive Social Control in Post-Reeonstru~tion Oeorgia. 1882- 1935," SOCI al Forcu 68 , no. 2 (1989): U8- 88 ; Robert Alan Oo ldberg, Hooded Emplr~. The Ku KI,.x Klon In Colorado (Urbana: University of Ill inois Press, 1981 ).

54 Martha M~nchaca and Richard R, Valencia, ~Anglo · Suon Ideologies in the 1920s- 1930s: Thei r Impact on the Desegregation of Mexican Students in Cal ifornia. " Anthropology and Educat ion Quarluly 21 . no. 3 ( 1990): 222- 49, Lawrence Bobo and Vin~ent L. Hutchings, " P e r~e pti oo s of Racial Group Competition : Extending Blumer 's Theory of Group Posi t ion to a Multiracial Soci al ConteKt," American Sociolog;cal ReView 61 , no. 6 (1 996): 951 - 12

SS Mary H. Cooper, - The Orowing Danger of lIate Groups," Editorial Research RepOrl$ I ( 1989): 261 -15; James E. Blackwell . " Persistence and Change In

Intergroup Relations: The Cris is upon US,H Social Problem$ 29, no. 4 ( 1982): 325-46.

56 Eri c Wolf, HAmeriean Anthropo logists and American Society,H in Reinvent"'g Anthropology. ed , Dell Hymes (New York : Random House, 1972), pp. 251 - 63. Gellner, ~The Politics of Anthropology," p, 300, argued that Americans arc an extreme group among anthropo logists, not because they assume power. but be~ause they arc fleeing from a society pervaded by its sense of superiority. Cuhural relativi sm con sequently has " a Ye ry special potency for them"; -it will be addictive and con stitute a reve lation."

S7 Including Imperial Rome : Ta~itu s' GermalU a described the CU$loms of each German tribe in deta il; Seneca 's Problems In Nal ,.ral SC /~ne~ compiled ethnographic material on Persia and India; Virgil's Georgies attempted a theory of cultural evolution .

58 For ell.llmple, Barry A. Turner. " So~iologi e al Aspects of Organiutional Symbolism , ~ Organization Sludiu " no, 2 ( 1986): 101 - 11 5: Nancy DiTomaso, - Symbolic Media and Social Solidarity: The Foundat ions of Corpora te Culture, ~ Ruearch an the Sociology o/Organizall an$ S ( 198 7): IOS-1 34; Stephen R, Barley, ~ Semiotics and the Study of Occupational and Organiutional Cultures," Adm"';strallve Science Q,.arterly 28, no. 3 (1983 ): 393-413 .

22 Ba,.sh "A",JvopolQgy and Il1dion.Hat""8 "

S9 Sec. for cnmplc. Gladys 1.. . Symons. ~Coping ",til Ihe Corporale Tnbe. How Women In Different Culturu E)tpcricncc the Managerial Rok.~ Jo"~,,ol of Manage,"en' 12. no J (19116): 319~90; Hamson M Trice. "Rites and Ceremonies in Organi:tational Cultures," Reuoreh on I;'~ SOCIology of O~go"':otiQ1U 4 (1985): 221-10.

60 Clark Molstad. "Control S,"'lcgics Used by Industrial Brc",cry Workers: Work AVOidance. Imprcssiol'l Management and Solid'nly.~ H .. mon Organ,za(wn 47 . no 4 (1988); 354-60: David A Scllricr and F Dayid Mulcahy. "Middle Management and Union Realities: Coercion and Ant,-Stru<';lurc in a Public Corporal lon," Hllmon 0,.gO",10110" 4 7. no. 2 (1988): 146-51 .

61 This was tile same program Ihal sponsored Fay Cohen's study on the politics of the fishing-rights strugg le, T"(Jliu on TrlOl,

62 Morinet. Ln ch'ens s 'e nlre-deyorenl. p. 2S I. found the same 10 be true in the Canadian North.

63 S.mlr Amin. " Demoer.cy and Nahonai Stralegy in the Periphery:' Third World QU"rTuly 9. no. 4 (1987) : 1129- S6.

64 Russel L. Barsh, " ProgressI\'e-Era Bureaucrats and the Unity of T"enl;eth­CenlUry Ind,an Policy," A,uTlc"" l"dum Qu"rleriy 15, no_ I (1991): 1-14: Russel L. Barsh, "The BIA Reorganization Follies of 1978: A Lesson in Bureaucratic Self-Defense," AmUIC(Jn /ndi(Jn Lo ... ReVle ... 7, no. I ( 1979): I ­SO.

6S Judy M. Torrance, Public Vlo/enct in C(Jnodo, 1867- /981 (Kingston & MontreaL McGill-Queen's UniverSity Press, 1986).

66 Russel L. Barsh, Tht WQsh'ngfon Fishing Rights COnlro~usy: An Economic CrUJqut (Seallle: University of Washington BAFP Monographs, 2nd cd. 1979). p. 30

67 Carmen Michaud. "Dc I' exolisme au reel: Ie racisme. ~ Rechcrchts (Jmulnd,e"nu (Ju Qutbu 21, nos. I & 2 (1991): 111 - 17 (1991) ,

68 Jeffrey L. Klaibef , " Prophets and Populists : Liberalion Theology, 1968- 1988," Tire Amuic(JS 46, no. I (1989) : I- IS .

69 Lois M Wilson, "The Imperalive orJuslice: The R, se ofConlCKlUal Theologies," Ee<Jmenre(J1 Rev,c ... 40. nos. J & 4 (1988): 407- 411 ,

70 Richard O. Clemmer. "Resistance and the Revitalization of Anthropologists: A Nc" Perspeclive on Cultural Change and Rul slance, ~ in Rflnvul,ng A"tlrropology, cd. Oell Hymcs (Nc '" York: Random House, 1972). pp. 213-47.